How about reading an example in the line which follows?
How do air bags prevent accidents?
They don't (ABS as mentioned falls in that category) however they can contribute to cancelling possible detrimental effects of cell phone usage. Like the number of traffic deaths, for example.
Well, his security system wasn't really cryptography-based. It was based on (relatvely) secure channels. Rather than trying to prevent the police from decoding his messages he was trying to prevent them from intercepting them in the first place. Often the problem is that merely sending a message is already conveying information, even if the message is not decoded - e.g. a phone call or email message gives another person the chance to trace down your location, even if they cannot read your message.
The cypher may have been good enough for some purposes - e.g. the couriers may not have been able to understand them, and thus been unable to carelessly talk about them. It's not likely that all of them were terribly smart. Also, even delaying decoding for a little while already has a positive effect for someone who is on the run.
The system appears to have worked well enough for 40 years. In fact the police state that it's exactly this low-tech approach which enabled him to escape for so long. I do hope the flaws in his system will keep him locked up for the rest of his live.
Are you sure about that? I would think it's just the opposite. This article gives the costs of the AMD 65nm facility in Dresden as $2.4 billion over 4 years. I'd be surprised if the digital design expenditure would look significant in comparison. That said, it looks like the fab should come online this year, so Intel won't have that advantage for long. If they were just starting to develop a 65nm facility now, I'd be very worried for them, though.
I'm not sure I understand how you imagine this to work. As some have pointed out the front seat is not an option, not sure whether that was your plan. Do you always want one person on the backseat? Should it be illegal to be a single parent? Or should it be illegal for one parents to drive their kid to the doctor while the other parent is at work?
Apart from that - yeah sure, kids will be bored sometimes, there'll be things they have to do which they don't like. At some point of their lives they'll be expected to have learned to sit still and deal with it. There is no miracle way to learning this, it's going to be experience based. There will be some howling in their lives, it's part of growing up.
No accident rates haven't climbed, they are steadily falling. So looking at that aspect is certainly valid. However it should also be considered that the automotive industry is constantly introducing new saftey measures, so there are a variety of different factors which influence the accident numbers. It's possible that cell phone use has no detrimental effect, but it's also possible that it has a detrimental effect which is cancelled out e.g. by ABS or airbags.
My company has a ban like that. Of course, we design chips, and all our data could just be emailed away easily. Oh and on top of that, many of us have company laptops and can connect to the company network from home. Basically if you are an employee of the company, any data you have access to can be transported out of the company, cell phones or no. Sheesh.
Now, with a DVD, I just want to stick it into the machine, and the movie starts playing.
Works like this on my MythTV setup, no commercials, no "pirating" nonsense and no Menus, it just plays. (Depends on the player you select, though. If you use xine instead of mplayer you can have the menus, too.)
When I was in university we had a class on field theory. The script was available as a bound book, which everybody bought (though technically it wasn't required). Nevertheless there was a student in class taking notes . The lecturer asked her "Why are you taking notes? You have the book, right?". (It was in fact quite visible on her desk.) She explained that taking notes allowed her to better focus on the lecture. I never took notes during that class, preferring to listen. At the end of the term I got a good grade - so did she.
Thing is - people are learning in different ways, what works well for her may not work so well for me and vice versa.
Will we ever have a president we can feel really good about again?
Probably not, but is that a reasonable expectation to have of a person anyway? That a whole country, or even just the majority of the electorate would feel good about him? Consider how different people are, how many things which seem trivial to one person are central core beliefs of the next. The only hope someone could have of pleasing all, would be to lie to most. Not a very desirable option, I think.
So why not accept that you just need to find someone for the job, that you'll probably never find someone who is perfect, and that you can only help to select which of the available candidates is the better one? The US system does not assume that the president is perfect - quite the opposite, it put in checks and balances for a good reason.
How would selling DRM-restricted music keep illegal copies out of the internet? Even if that DRM was effective, anyone can still buy a CD, rip it and share the result. Is there any popular song on iTunes, which isn't already available on some filesharing system?
Sure, once you make the assumption that the outcome doesn't matter, then voting doesn't matter either. However because Bush got in, there are now 10s of thousands of dead Iraqis, an entire country is headed for civil war and it's infrastructure destroyed, corruption increased significantly, scientific progress has been hampered ("intelligent design", climate research), the US national debt exploded...
It's not very it likely that Gore would have been similarly bad.
However it is very convenient to assume voting and trying to convince people is pointless, because then you don't have to do anything.
One of the most powerful political tools, is to convince the opposition that they can't do anything anyway. The reality is, that the last election was damn close. It would have easily been winable with a little less apathy. Sure, the Bush side had many untapped votes, too - however one side did better than the other in mobilizing their supporters.
The thing is, if people can not be bothered to make the little effort to vote, is it likely they can be bothered to take the effort to organize a revolution? If they don't feel this bill is wrong, will they think of people attacking the US military because of it as revolutionaries? Or will they think of them as terrorists?
The opinions within the US military personnel are likely not that much different than the opionions of the general population. So if the general population thinks of the uprising as a terrorist activity, chances are the troops will too.
An armed populace helps to shift the balance somewhat if you have e.g. a democratically minded populance and an oppressive government. If you have a populace which is ok with being oppressed and supports the government, it's not paritcularly interesting whether they agree with the government armed or unarmed.
Unless you can convince people that the government is wrong, you won't have a chance of changing the government's actions. Currently, if you were to manage to convince people, it would be easy just to vote other politicians into office. However if you fail even with that you better don't put too much hope on a few handguns.
I disagree regarding the computer aspect here. Mr. Krug was taken because he has been absurdly careless with his money. He could have just as easily lost it by buying a ruin which was advertised e.g. in the New York Times. Of course then Mr. Krug and Ms. Fennelly might complain that they'd seen the ad in a reputable paper.
how many people have set up linux for their parents or family, chosen Ubuntu and now they have to make sure they go in and change that.
Does it matter much in that case? The root password will only be available to users of the system, so for single-user machines this shouldn't be much of a worry. You can just delete the logfiles next time you visit.
However if you've set up a machine in a business or university setting, then you have a big problem on your hands. You basically have to assume that at least one user of the system has the password now, with all the consequences of that. A patch may not be sufficient, all sorts of things could be installed on the system by now.
Sure, but one of Apple's advantages is the link to the music industry via iTunes, so they'll be reluctant to offer that. However if you don't care about your relationship to the labels, you could more easily risk the clash.
The actual main advantage of cell phones over an iPod is: everybody carries one around already and it can play mp3s. The advantages of a dedicated music player are: longer battery life, more storage space, better handling. As technology progresses the advantages in battery life and storage space will quickly diminish. (E.g. having double the space and double the up-time doesn't matter much anymore once you are in the 40 gig / 24 hour range.) Then again, the iPod could just as easily become a cell phone killer.
At the same time they can keep pulling a Microsfot and rip Apples designs all day long. Real easy when you can higher the same designer even.
How is that ripping Apple's design? *He* is the designer, he just did some work for Apple for a while. If you hire somebody to work for you, you own the work he did for you, you do not own his brain, he does not become your property. I know a lot of companies would prefer this to be the case, but it's sad to see people actually accepting this disgusting mindset.
Aside from every major Islamic organization condemning terrorism and violence, what more do you want?
That would be fine, but as you know it's not correct. Many muslim organizations do just that, many muslims feel like that, true. Unfortunately, compared to the level of violence it's not enough. Muslims in Idonesia and Bangladesh may be doing well, those in Saudi-Arabia and Egypt do not.
Yes it's unfair that Islam is under attack by radicals, but that's the way it is. And sorry it's not under attack by a violent fringe but by big religious and political movements.
Just recently, in Germany the muslim organizations bounded together to form a central representation in Germany. This allows them to speak out with one voice when terrorists want to claim sole representation of Islam. Seems like a good way to handle things. I wish them luck, but I see no point in pretending the problem they fight does not exist.
Sure it has, and your criticism is correct. However consider all the uproar over some simple cartoons, and the deafening silence when it comes to islamist violence. Muslims shouldn't stand by when extremists claim to represent their religion. Quite a few have started to speak out, but the attitude that extremism is merely being very religious, is widespread and not just shared by a few people. Not that the American attitude of "foreign lives don't matter" is any better. (Why would you not even attempt to count Iraqi deaths?) Then again, the reputation of the US is doing similarly bad as that of Islam.
Slashdot Mirror
How about reading an example in the line which follows?
How do air bags prevent accidents?
They don't (ABS as mentioned falls in that category) however they can contribute to cancelling possible detrimental effects of cell phone usage. Like the number of traffic deaths, for example.
The cypher may have been good enough for some purposes - e.g. the couriers may not have been able to understand them, and thus been unable to carelessly talk about them. It's not likely that all of them were terribly smart. Also, even delaying decoding for a little while already has a positive effect for someone who is on the run.
The system appears to have worked well enough for 40 years. In fact the police state that it's exactly this low-tech approach which enabled him to escape for so long. I do hope the flaws in his system will keep him locked up for the rest of his live.
Are you sure about that? I would think it's just the opposite. This article gives the costs of the AMD 65nm facility in Dresden as $2.4 billion over 4 years. I'd be surprised if the digital design expenditure would look significant in comparison. That said, it looks like the fab should come online this year, so Intel won't have that advantage for long. If they were just starting to develop a 65nm facility now, I'd be very worried for them, though.
Apart from that - yeah sure, kids will be bored sometimes, there'll be things they have to do which they don't like. At some point of their lives they'll be expected to have learned to sit still and deal with it. There is no miracle way to learning this, it's going to be experience based. There will be some howling in their lives, it's part of growing up.
No accident rates haven't climbed, they are steadily falling. So looking at that aspect is certainly valid. However it should also be considered that the automotive industry is constantly introducing new saftey measures, so there are a variety of different factors which influence the accident numbers. It's possible that cell phone use has no detrimental effect, but it's also possible that it has a detrimental effect which is cancelled out e.g. by ABS or airbags.
My company has a ban like that. Of course, we design chips, and all our data could just be emailed away easily. Oh and on top of that, many of us have company laptops and can connect to the company network from home. Basically if you are an employee of the company, any data you have access to can be transported out of the company, cell phones or no. Sheesh.
Works like this on my MythTV setup, no commercials, no "pirating" nonsense and no Menus, it just plays. (Depends on the player you select, though. If you use xine instead of mplayer you can have the menus, too.)
Thing is - people are learning in different ways, what works well for her may not work so well for me and vice versa.
Probably not, but is that a reasonable expectation to have of a person anyway? That a whole country, or even just the majority of the electorate would feel good about him? Consider how different people are, how many things which seem trivial to one person are central core beliefs of the next. The only hope someone could have of pleasing all, would be to lie to most. Not a very desirable option, I think.
So why not accept that you just need to find someone for the job, that you'll probably never find someone who is perfect, and that you can only help to select which of the available candidates is the better one? The US system does not assume that the president is perfect - quite the opposite, it put in checks and balances for a good reason.
How would selling DRM-restricted music keep illegal copies out of the internet? Even if that DRM was effective, anyone can still buy a CD, rip it and share the result. Is there any popular song on iTunes, which isn't already available on some filesharing system?
It's not very it likely that Gore would have been similarly bad.
However it is very convenient to assume voting and trying to convince people is pointless, because then you don't have to do anything.
It's all your fault Omaze. :-)
Regarding airplane parts, this may be interesting: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
That's right: Spain, the land where the polar bears play and the penguins roam. Or something. :-)
(The penguins travel from the South Pole to Spain on giant ice floats, in case you were wondering.)
An armed populace helps to shift the balance somewhat if you have e.g. a democratically minded populance and an oppressive government. If you have a populace which is ok with being oppressed and supports the government, it's not paritcularly interesting whether they agree with the government armed or unarmed.
Unless you can convince people that the government is wrong, you won't have a chance of changing the government's actions. Currently, if you were to manage to convince people, it would be easy just to vote other politicians into office. However if you fail even with that you better don't put too much hope on a few handguns.
I disagree regarding the computer aspect here. Mr. Krug was taken because he has been absurdly careless with his money. He could have just as easily lost it by buying a ruin which was advertised e.g. in the New York Times. Of course then Mr. Krug and Ms. Fennelly might complain that they'd seen the ad in a reputable paper.
Does it matter much in that case? The root password will only be available to users of the system, so for single-user machines this shouldn't be much of a worry. You can just delete the logfiles next time you visit.
However if you've set up a machine in a business or university setting, then you have a big problem on your hands. You basically have to assume that at least one user of the system has the password now, with all the consequences of that. A patch may not be sufficient, all sorts of things could be installed on the system by now.
Dunno - presumably it's long been in any password cracker out there? Along with "none" or "password" or any other "clever" password there is?
Sure, but one of Apple's advantages is the link to the music industry via iTunes, so they'll be reluctant to offer that. However if you don't care about your relationship to the labels, you could more easily risk the clash.
The actual main advantage of cell phones over an iPod is: everybody carries one around already and it can play mp3s. The advantages of a dedicated music player are: longer battery life, more storage space, better handling. As technology progresses the advantages in battery life and storage space will quickly diminish. (E.g. having double the space and double the up-time doesn't matter much anymore once you are in the 40 gig / 24 hour range.) Then again, the iPod could just as easily become a cell phone killer.
How is that ripping Apple's design? *He* is the designer, he just did some work for Apple for a while. If you hire somebody to work for you, you own the work he did for you, you do not own his brain, he does not become your property. I know a lot of companies would prefer this to be the case, but it's sad to see people actually accepting this disgusting mindset.
Wow you reach your conclusions pretty quickly...
Aside from every major Islamic organization condemning terrorism and violence, what more do you want?
That would be fine, but as you know it's not correct. Many muslim organizations do just that, many muslims feel like that, true. Unfortunately, compared to the level of violence it's not enough. Muslims in Idonesia and Bangladesh may be doing well, those in Saudi-Arabia and Egypt do not.
Yes it's unfair that Islam is under attack by radicals, but that's the way it is. And sorry it's not under attack by a violent fringe but by big religious and political movements.
Just recently, in Germany the muslim organizations bounded together to form a central representation in Germany. This allows them to speak out with one voice when terrorists want to claim sole representation of Islam. Seems like a good way to handle things. I wish them luck, but I see no point in pretending the problem they fight does not exist.
Uhm - like the Ayatollah is running for president currently?
There were huge anti-war demonstrations world-wide.
Sure it has, and your criticism is correct. However consider all the uproar over some simple cartoons, and the deafening silence when it comes to islamist violence. Muslims shouldn't stand by when extremists claim to represent their religion. Quite a few have started to speak out, but the attitude that extremism is merely being very religious, is widespread and not just shared by a few people. Not that the American attitude of "foreign lives don't matter" is any better. (Why would you not even attempt to count Iraqi deaths?) Then again, the reputation of the US is doing similarly bad as that of Islam.