Microsoft does make great keyboards and mice. I just got one of their bluetooth wireless mice and it's great! And nobody ever complained about the hardware in an X-box.
Microsoft really does have credibility in this area.
I fully agree, I exclusively use their keyboards and mice (even on my Linux machines). I never could get to like the Logitech mice, and though a bit more expensive their mice and keyboards really are solid.
But aren't these out-sourced? I'm sure they have a lot to do with the design, though, as most of their hardware products aren't simply a clone of some other brand/model (eg, the SideWinder, IntelliMouse, etc), but I'm sure they source some serious talent in the hardware industry.
Despite that, though, they do seem to try very hard to equate "Microsoft Hardware" with quality, as most all of their hardware products are in fact really high-quality no matter who makes it... too bad this kind of thought doesn't go into some of their software and security practices...
I am sure that their media device is top-notch quality on the hardware side. I'm also guessing that it requires Windows, but sometimes they surprise me in that area (eg, their wireless networking stuff work under any modern OS, likely because they use standard chipsets (Broadcom or PrismII, I'm not sure...)).
I can understand the FCC wanting to push HDTV, but it seems to me that the consumer doesn't want it. Most big cities have at least one (and usually two or three) station broadcasting HDTV signals, but people aren't buying the sets.
Why?
Because there is no need. Nobody buys SACD or DVD-Audio units for the same reason: the current standard is more than good enough. Analog TV looks more than fine to me for anything they want to broadcast.
Unless someone wants to broadcast, over the air, high-res images for some reason, the vast majority of things people watch would have no benefit from a higher resolution and digital signal.
Would it be cool? Probably, but I don't think it should be required. We didn't have laws to require that music be distributed on CD -- the market made that decision, and rather quickly in comparison. The market has also decided, at least so far, that digital, high-res TV is not necessary. The things that are broadcasted -- even via cable/satellite -- don't really need a higher resolution.
I say, let the market decide when it happens. Or -- if you must push the standard -- require the broadcasters to send an HDTV signal, but don't require that all televisions sold four years from now be equipped with an HDTV receiver.
I guess I'll be picking up a large-ish high-quality analog TV in 2006, in hopes that it will last a few years.
The box is mine, as it is part of the vehicle I purchased and so it's contents should also be under my control, and I can chose to use the evidence for my own benefit, or select not to produce it.
Right -- just like if you are accused (with probable cause) of any other crime. You might have evidence in your house. You can choose to show it or not, depending on whether it might incriminate you.
Except of course that the court can issue a warrant to search your house. The court can require that anyone who saw the incident (or "witnesses") testify what they know.
I don't see this as any different. Certainly you have the right to remain silent (specifically, you are granted the right not to provide testimony that would incriminate yourself). But any hard evidence -- be it a video tape of the incident, a witness' account, or some other record -- is certainly usable against you.
When is it ok to put surveillance sensors in products and not tell the consumer. (Remember, the consumer owns the car.)
I suspect that most people don't care. If you told people that one of the many computers in their modern car was recording information that could, in the event of an accident, help the manufacturer improve airbags and other safety equipment -- most people would have no problem with this.
Most people don't drive at more than double the speed limit and cause fatal accidents, either.
So the device is there already. If you're suspected of a crime with probable cause (in the US anyway), the court can order a search of your house or car. The court can require that people testify what they know about an incident. The court can certainly request an expert analyze skid marks, dent patterns, etc on the car.
If there happens to be a device in your car that knows your speed at time of impact, why shouldn't this be used? The police gather all sorts of information relating to a vehicular crime, and much of it would likely come from the vehicle in question.
I'm all for privacy, and in fact I'm about as paranoid as they come. But I just don't see this as being a bad thing. If these devices were recording long-term data that could be retreived without good reason (or was being transmitted), I'd be right behind you, arguing against it. But in this case (read the article, look at the details), how can you argue that it's a bad thing?
Finally: compare this situation to the following:
An idiot is driving well over double the speed limit. Idiot smacks another car, killing the other driver. Idiot had a video camera running (possibly by mistake) that happened to catch the speedometer in its view just prior to the accident.
Would you argue that the tape -- belonging to the Idiot -- wasn't submissible?
You have not given an argument for why you think it is a good idea that something I own can then spy on me, why the existence of this device should be hidden from me, and why it should be illegal for me to remove or tamper with it.
I'm not the person you are replying to, but... a couple of points:
1) The device isn't intended to "spy" on you. It is intended to assist the manufacturer in improving airbags (in this particular case).
2) I don't think the existance is "hidden" from you. If you were to inquire for technical details I'm sure it's existance would be revealed (possibly published in a Haynes manual).
3) I haven't read anywhere yet that it's illegal to tamper with, though I do see it as being one of those types of things where one would have absolutely no reason to tamper with it...
The box will not stop speeding, but rather increase the amount of information the police have at their disposal.
The box isn't designed specifically for this, but then, neither is the home camera that might happen to catch the incident. Certainly a home video (or security tape, etc) would be submissible as evidence?
The issue is making any given citizen culpable for every minute of his/her life.
According to the article, the device only has enough memory to store a few seconds worth of data. Technically yes, every minute is being recorded, but at the same time it's constantly overwriting all but the last few seconds.
If the device was recording long-term, or transmitting data to anyone, I would agree with you and protest the device's existance.
In this case, however, the driver was being an idiot. This idiotic activity caused a fatality. There exists a device on the idiot's car that knows certain information about what happened.
When one is accused of a crime, the court can order a search of your home or vehicle, and even order people to testify what they know about an incident. Why is retrieving information from a device in your car -- one that happens to know certain important details -- any different?
I'll be one of the first people to jump up at privacy violations, but I think both that the privacy issues with this are minimal and that the benefits are enormous.
Not only that, but (in the US anyway) when there is probably cause that you did something illegal, and the court orders evidence of any kind -- you have no privacy. The court can order a search of your house or vehicle, phone records, and even require anyone who witnessed an incident to report on it (subpoenaed as witnesses).
So what is wrong with using existing evidence as recorded by your vehicle?
In the case where you did nothing wrong and there was not probable cause, you'd of course sue for wrongful arrest, privacy invasion, etc. I don't believe that was the case here. In fact, in most cases you'd serve some jail time just for being caught going more than double the speed limit, much less causing a fatality in the process.
Using technology as an indirect means of invading someones privacy is still invading privacy.\
Let's say that instead of this "black box" data recording device, it were a red-light camera installed at a near-by traffic light. The incident was caught on tape.
Would this be (in your opinion) submissible as evidence?
Suppose it was a home video camera of a nearby witness. Or a security camera nearby that, again, just happened to catch the incident.
Still ok?
Suppose the city has security cameras mounted on every street corner specifically for this purpose.
Is this okay?
Finally: if anything else in the car could be used as evidence -- skid marks created by the car, impact patterns, etc -- would these be submissible?
If the car happens to have a device that knows the speed (and other data) of the car at the time of impact, why would you not use this as evidence?
Granted, I'm as paranoid as they come, and I certainly do not want devices installed into cars specifically designed to catch me doing something "wrong". However, in this case you have to admit, the driver was being an idiot. If I were his car, I'd turn him in too...
I believe the main reason that they aren't so dangerous these days is because of the data they have collected/are collecting. It's like having debug-logging enabled, and in cases like airbags I think it's a great thing. I know first-gen airbags had lots of problems, and this is one technology you really want to mature very quickly (and it did).
...and an individual capable of doing something like that clearly has such a gross lack of understanding of cars and their capabilities that they probably thought 2 Fast 2 Furious was a good movie.
I agree fully. Speed limits, while perhaps a bit low in some cases, are there for a reason. Going 10 MPH over is one thing (and still ticket-able). Going more than double the limit -- you'd get jail time just for being caught, much less actually causing an accident involving a death.
And, both F&F movies were among the worse movies I'd ever seen...
This should have been a criminal conviction, especially with the supporting evidence from the black box.
Absolutely. Red-light cameras are sometimes used for evidence, despite that not being their purpose. Same for home video cameras. The fact that the "black box" wasn't made for this purpose is irrelevant (according to the article, this is the main argument against it); if it can be used to reliably pinpoint criminal activity (which this was, IMO), it should be used, no differently than if a red-light camera or home video camera had caught the incident on tape.
Now, if special devices were put into cars specifically for the purpose of logging (long-term) speed and other activities, I would be very much against that. Cases like this, however, don't strike the paranoid nerve in me, aside from the fact that some will want to use this as a reason to implement more invasive devices.
There's a big difference between continuous monitoring of speed and knowing the speed when a crash happens.
I agree, but according to the article (however technically correct it may be), the device only has enough memory to store a few seconds worth of data; thus, after an accident there will be data on the last few seconds. Beyond that, any obnoxious driving will be overwritten within a few seconds.
I personally think it's a good idea, provided it doesn't go any further (long-term storage, reporting in any way, etc). Regardless of the purpose for the stored data (to help improve air-bags, in this case), if the data is there and can prove someone was being truly negligent, with relative accuracy -- I say use it.
however, the Constitution prohibits Congress from codifying "an establishment of religion" as part of this country's law, which is what they did when they added "...under God..." and "In God We Trust" to the pledge and currency.
I have always been under the impression that when the term "God" is used in these situations, it was not in reference to any particular god or religion.
While I personally don't trust in any god myself, I never thought One nation under God or In God we Trust were really trying to encourage or enforce a religious belief on me.
Not allowing me to buy beer on a Sunday -- now that's something I have a problem with...;)
At home I have multiple monitors and its a joy to program with. At work I have multiple computers. I challenge anyone to have this setup and not try to cut and paste between computers at least once.
You might want to check out Synergy. Far from perfect, but you can share a mouse and keyboard with multiple machines. You can copy and paste text, as well.
Though, it does further confuse the issue, making you want to drag 'n' drop files or drag a window from one machine to another...
Yeah, well a lot of mail software relies on that, and one of the worst things about this is that Verisign is actually receiving a lot of mail that wasn't for them in the first place; they get to read, analyse and keep and it never, ever arrives where it was intended and doesn't bounce either.
Where did you get that they are receiving email for non-existant domains? Remember, HTTP and email are two entirely different things. I would venture to guess that they are not in fact responding to anything but port 80, and are only resolving normal hostnames (not MX records) for non-existant domains.
While I don't agree with how they just started doing this out of nowhere (it confused me on more than one occasion), I don't have any reason to believe that what they're doing will break anything (especially email). And if done correctly (which I'm not sure Verisign did), it could be quite useful, as long as it's blatantly clear that the domain is not a registered domain (H1 tags would be appropriate).
Also note that the Yahoo story in the link (liked as "Verisign Blinked") is extremely Verisign-biased, given that it's nothing more than a Verisign press release...
I tend to use the web for things I wouldn't have bothered with before. For example, about a year ago I recall reading an article about Chernobyl, and out of morbid curiosity I started researching the hell out of it. I never would have bothered before having the Internet; the novelty would have worn off long before I got to the library.
Similarly, if I'm watching a movie, often I want to know the name of a song, or I can't remember what other movie some actor was in... so I hit AllMusic.com or IMDB.com. Before the web I'd have just given up for lack of wanting to expend the effort.
On the other hand, I do use the web for news, pricing information, and other things for which there are/were alternatives. It does make it much easier to see who has the Maxtor 80 GB drives for the least money this week than it would be to actually (physically) shop around. When it comes to news, I can research a topic/event as much or as little as I like, in my own time.
So, I use the web for things I used to do in other ways, and I use it for new things I'd have not bothered with before. I wouldn't go as far as to say how did I live without it, because obviously I did -- but I would say that I'm so used to it now, I can't see going back to not having the web available.
I haven't read the terms, but it's possible they're taking a risk, too: They have to sift through the claims to determine if they're valid. For the ones found invalid, they may have already paid the claimer.
Read the terms. They are not "paying" anyone, except as follows:
*If you qualify, your "Instant Settlement" is the credit that Lindows.com will give to you to immediately purchase products using the MSfreePC program in exchange for the right to process your settlement claim on your behalf as described in more detail in Step 7 and Step 8 of the Instant Settlement Wizard.
In other words, if you sign on through them, you get your settlement in the form of Lindows Fun Bucks (a term I just made up), and it is very misleading to those who don't read the fine print (I'd venture to guess, most).
It's very tricky in my opinion, and for once I actually agree with Microsoft's position on this for the above reasons.
They lie! My main bitch about the optical mice I've used is that because they are sliding around generally on the desk without a mousepad the feet that they glide on get horribly gummed up from dust...
I've been using an optical mouse since about 2000, and I still use a mouse pad. You can still do that:)
I just feel it glides more nicely on a mouse pad.
I'm actually on my third optical now; first was an MS Intellimouse Explorer (hate their software, but their hardware is good), and it was great except for extremely fast movements.
Then I got the wireless one, since my old one's buttons started getting erratic. The wireless tracked fast movements perfectly (I can't throw it off no matter how fast I try to move it), but the wireless part adds a few hundred ms of lag that's noticable, and it eats AA batteries......so I picked up the newest, wired (USB) Intellimouse Explorer. Now I have my wired mouse back, slightly better ergonomics (side-buttons are smaller, harder to hit accidentally) along with the fast-movement precision.
Haven't tried a dual-optical yet, and I am curious, but so far the Logitech's I've tried didn't track as nicely as the MS ones (though I've only tried a few).
I wouldn't say that viruses or SPAM are good because people might learn from it. The fact is, people don't learn. Most people continue, years after the ILoveYou virus, to open unrequested executable attachments.
Most importantly: most people who *use* email as part of their job, have no clue about how things work, or what is an "executable" file versus a benign "document" file -- and with VBScript and exploits in document viewers, that line is quite blurred. But people don't care either way, they just call IT when there's a problem.
The solution is to quit standardising on insecure protocols, and poorly-written software. Nothing the end-user does should be able to cause dammage. More importantly, dammage shouldn't be an option for an outsider.
However -- I do agree that the more this type of thing happens, the more we learn about securing our networks/software. Many people require some kind of motivation to take action. Microsoft and their "push for security" is probably a good thing. Sure, it may still pale in comparison to most other software vendors, but no less, if Code Red, Blaster, etc can cause MS to produce more secure software, then all the better. This is, after all, what most businesses standardize on, and Micrsoft software is, after all, where most of these problems are at in the first place.
It's like how a company doesn't take action about a poor product until they're sued. It's still a good thing that they finally took action. Even if it required a lawsuit, bad PR, or whatever first, they are still taking some kind of action, making things better for the rest of us.
Re:This is why ISPs are changing their SMTP rules?
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1
The thing is, if every ISP did this, your job would be easier: you would no longer need to run an SMTP relay for your customers (with the associated "pop before send" or "bad mailfrom" protection you're likely using now).
My ISP is not blocking port 25, and I have a colocated server -- but I send my mail through the ISP's relay. This way I have no reason to run any kind of SMTP relay on my machine; if it's local, it's accepted, otherwise it's rejected.
I'm not sure why hosting customers would want to relay their email through their web server, when nearly all ISPs provide this same service locally. I used to work for a web host, and I know customers aren't that easy to convince, but the fact remains, there's no reason to relay your outgoing email through your web server.
I'm all for port 25 blocking, if it helps curb spam. If we could just get rid of ISPs filtering spam without the customers' knowledge (Earthlink likes to block our order notifications -- emails the customer *paid* to recieve) then I'd be happy.
While I can do some neat things with it, I must say that it's fallen short of the wonderous expectations I had for such a system in 1993...
always seems to be the case, my expectations for 2013 are as follows:
- Computers will be much, much faster - Operating systems will be much, much more bloated - Our demands will have gone up - Mozilla will have become sentient, and will be its own project maintainer
And the end result will be roughly the same. Except that last part, that will be new.
Alpha-blending at the OS-level will be not just standard equipment, but nearly required. Games will be more beautiful, but will come on 3 DVDs and take 3 or 4 minutes to load up, giving about 30-50 FPS on a "fast" machine. (Seriously, load up UT2K3 on a "fast" machine, it looks nice but is very slow...)
The video card will be about the size of the motherboard, and will require more cooling than the CPU. Audio cards will come with fans (if that sounds weird, what if I told you, in 1993, about fans on video cards, water-cooling, or heat-spreaders on RAM modules? Case-mods, LED-fans,...)
We'll keep hearing about how magnetic media is coming to an end, reaching the end of Moore's law, even while Maxtor is releasing 4.5 TB disk drives, and Seagate (among others) announces a new standard to replace the SATA that we'll have all become quite familiar with.
... in other words, nothing will change, except that we'll then take certain CPU-intensive tasks for granted, much as today compared to 1993. But just like encoding/ripping/sharing MP3s was very labor-intensive in 1993, such is the case with video now, and we'll see that whole cycle again with video via DivX...
Video capture/tuner cards will be standard equipment (like audio today), and maybe -- just maybe -- by then we'll have some kind of industry standard on digital broadcast (cable/sattelite). Eh, probably not...
The "hackers" would prefer a legally signed bootloader, since it would not have the side effect of allowing pirated games to run on the Xbox.
It's not that simple. A boot-loader can likely load anything -- not necessarily Linux. So suppose a boot-loader were available, and someone figured out a way to load a pirated game with it. Now people can pirate said game with no hardware mods at all.
At least with the exploit, some hardware modding is required, which most users -- even users who frequently pirate software/games -- won't bother with.
So really neither option is much better than the other. MS likely won't even justify this with a response.
Despite all the people who hate Metallica for various reasons ('selling out' on their musical style, becoming mainstream, fighting Napster), aren't they taking steps in the right direction?
I have to agree. I actually don't care for the new album all that much (and I did go out and buy it), but after reading the Lars interview for the first time today, this is exactly what Lars wanted. He admits that the Internet just may be the future of music distribution, but what's lacking with Napster et al is control.
Of course, they have a bit more control with their new setup. And, I don't doubt one bit that they are trying to win back some fans that may have been lost over the Napster issue, but honestly, they weren't being technophobic or anything like that, they simply wanted to have some say in the distribution of their works.
I do still feel some of the tactics were too harsh, but the interview does clear up quite a bit of it for me...
You know, I would have said the same thing, but I just read the linked interview (I had no idea that took place) and my opinion has changed a bit. Back in the day (around or just before the interview) they said a lot of things, but only choice quotes gained a lot of attention.
After reading the interview (which is surprisingly unedited, even for/., but I rather enjoyed it that way), I realize that some of what they said was due to lack of knowledge/experience, and some was simply taken out of context. Lars even admits to changing his opinions on a couple issues, and he does make a few good points...
The protocol version number does not indicate the maximum data transfer rate supported by a device, only the maximum supported by that protocol version. To rephraze, a USB device (or host) can support USB 2.0 features without necessarily supporting the "High-Speed" data rates that the 2.0 spec allows for. The 2.0 spec does not require that it be a High-Speed device.
The "Full-Speed" and "High-Speed" designations have been there all along. Only recently did companies (or their marketing departments) realize they can claim "USB 2.0", by merely adding the minimum features required by the 2.0 spec (likely all via firmware upgrades, as opposed to requiring faster, more expensive hardware), in order to do better sales.
The idea is that the majority of users do not need 480 MB/s USB to run their mice/keyboards/printers. Companies are losing customers because the customers think "High-Speed" USB would be beneficial, and they think that 1.1 == Slower. Just like AMD was (potentially) losing customers because of the "1.8 GHz > 1.533 GHz" mentality.
I hate when companies assume they know better than their own customers, and pull shit like this in hopes most people will never know/care. I didn't know this was being done until today. I even had to check to make sure my new motherboard did in fact support High-Speed USB 2.0 (luckily it does, or I'd be complaining to someone)...
The article's wording could have been better (rather, the USB Forum could have used better wording), but it's still a very sneaky thing in any case, and one more thing I know (now) to watch for when buying USB devices/controllers...
Yeah, but I bet you it'll be like Windows XP's theoretical ability to use FAT 32 - it can read it, but it won't actually let you format in FAT32 when doing an installation.
That's funny, my laptop is WinXP Pro with FAT32. Since the install partition was less than 10GB, XP's installer recommended FAT32. I went with that so I can share files with my RedHat installation.
And guess what? Its a proprietry file system that other OS's won't read *coughlinuxcough*
I agree there, but my feeling is simply this: don't use WinFS on a dual-boot machine. It will still network with a separate Linux box just fine.
For me the only time it's even necessary to do dual-boot is on the laptop, but in any case, if you're setting up a dual-boot machine and don't take the filesystem types into consideration, well, that's just poor planning.
I'm sure Longhorn will be compatible with FAT32, but if not then there's a valid concern (Linux still can't do much with NTFS and likely won't touch WinFS for years to come)...
Highly improbable in my opinion, but imagine how that would piss off Microsoft, having contributed money to the whole thing...:)
In reality, SCO is just desparate. IBM will crush them, or maybe buy them just to shut them the hell up (which would be nice -- IBM would then own said code and would hopefully continue to distribute it GPL).
Re:More accessories...new outlets
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 1
I just hope they come out with a better plug that the cigarette lighter plugs we're used to. I can't think of anytime I've ever seen anyone who actually uses those things to light cigaretters and apart from doing that they're absolutly horrid.
It always pisses me off when I see a newer car with no lighter -- but like 5 "power outlets". I do believe you can get a lighter and a cup-holder ashtray on request, though.
The lighter is extremely handy for its intended purpose. Ever tried to flick a Bic with wind from the windows and/or vents, while keeping a hand on the wheel? The 12v lighter is great for these occasions.
Now, my argument would be to keep the lighter around (maybe a new, non-plug-compatible shape to avoid accidental usage with 12v devices), but have a separate accessory outlet design -- completely unrelated to the lighter.
Personally I think there are too many 12v devices for this to be practical. Not just stereos, radar detectors, and phone chargers, but geeky (more niche, less likely to be redesigned) things like ham radios and such...
The perfect comprimise IMO is to use a dual-rail power supply of +/-12v. You'd get full backward-compatibility for 12-14v devices, and a full 24-28v source for devices that need it (with a special 3-wire power cable). Two motorcycle-sized 12v batteries could be used (or a new battery with a center-tap, whatever).
But the auto industry doesn't listen to me. Otherwise we'd still have cigarette lighters and ashtrays...
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft does make great keyboards and mice. I just got one of their bluetooth wireless mice and it's great! And nobody ever complained about the hardware in an X-box.
Microsoft really does have credibility in this area.
I fully agree, I exclusively use their keyboards and mice (even on my Linux machines). I never could get to like the Logitech mice, and though a bit more expensive their mice and keyboards really are solid.
But aren't these out-sourced? I'm sure they have a lot to do with the design, though, as most of their hardware products aren't simply a clone of some other brand/model (eg, the SideWinder, IntelliMouse, etc), but I'm sure they source some serious talent in the hardware industry.
Despite that, though, they do seem to try very hard to equate "Microsoft Hardware" with quality, as most all of their hardware products are in fact really high-quality no matter who makes it... too bad this kind of thought doesn't go into some of their software and security practices...
I am sure that their media device is top-notch quality on the hardware side. I'm also guessing that it requires Windows, but sometimes they surprise me in that area (eg, their wireless networking stuff work under any modern OS, likely because they use standard chipsets (Broadcom or PrismII, I'm not sure...)).
I can understand the FCC wanting to push HDTV, but it seems to me that the consumer doesn't want it. Most big cities have at least one (and usually two or three) station broadcasting HDTV signals, but people aren't buying the sets.
Why?
Because there is no need. Nobody buys SACD or DVD-Audio units for the same reason: the current standard is more than good enough. Analog TV looks more than fine to me for anything they want to broadcast.
Unless someone wants to broadcast, over the air, high-res images for some reason, the vast majority of things people watch would have no benefit from a higher resolution and digital signal.
Would it be cool? Probably, but I don't think it should be required. We didn't have laws to require that music be distributed on CD -- the market made that decision, and rather quickly in comparison. The market has also decided, at least so far, that digital, high-res TV is not necessary. The things that are broadcasted -- even via cable/satellite -- don't really need a higher resolution.
I say, let the market decide when it happens. Or -- if you must push the standard -- require the broadcasters to send an HDTV signal, but don't require that all televisions sold four years from now be equipped with an HDTV receiver.
I guess I'll be picking up a large-ish high-quality analog TV in 2006, in hopes that it will last a few years.
The box is mine, as it is part of the vehicle I purchased and so it's contents should also be under my control, and I can chose to use the evidence for my own benefit, or select not to produce it.
Right -- just like if you are accused (with probable cause) of any other crime. You might have evidence in your house. You can choose to show it or not, depending on whether it might incriminate you.
Except of course that the court can issue a warrant to search your house. The court can require that anyone who saw the incident (or "witnesses") testify what they know.
I don't see this as any different. Certainly you have the right to remain silent (specifically, you are granted the right not to provide testimony that would incriminate yourself). But any hard evidence -- be it a video tape of the incident, a witness' account, or some other record -- is certainly usable against you.
When is it ok to put surveillance sensors in products and not tell the consumer. (Remember, the consumer owns the car.)
I suspect that most people don't care. If you told people that one of the many computers in their modern car was recording information that could, in the event of an accident, help the manufacturer improve airbags and other safety equipment -- most people would have no problem with this.
Most people don't drive at more than double the speed limit and cause fatal accidents, either.
So the device is there already. If you're suspected of a crime with probable cause (in the US anyway), the court can order a search of your house or car. The court can require that people testify what they know about an incident. The court can certainly request an expert analyze skid marks, dent patterns, etc on the car.
If there happens to be a device in your car that knows your speed at time of impact, why shouldn't this be used? The police gather all sorts of information relating to a vehicular crime, and much of it would likely come from the vehicle in question.
I'm all for privacy, and in fact I'm about as paranoid as they come. But I just don't see this as being a bad thing. If these devices were recording long-term data that could be retreived without good reason (or was being transmitted), I'd be right behind you, arguing against it. But in this case (read the article, look at the details), how can you argue that it's a bad thing?
Finally: compare this situation to the following:
An idiot is driving well over double the speed limit. Idiot smacks another car, killing the other driver. Idiot had a video camera running (possibly by mistake) that happened to catch the speedometer in its view just prior to the accident.
Would you argue that the tape -- belonging to the Idiot -- wasn't submissible?
You have not given an argument for why you think it is a good idea that something I own can then spy on me, why the existence of this device should be hidden from me, and why it should be illegal for me to remove or tamper with it.
I'm not the person you are replying to, but... a couple of points:
1) The device isn't intended to "spy" on you. It is intended to assist the manufacturer in improving airbags (in this particular case).
2) I don't think the existance is "hidden" from you. If you were to inquire for technical details I'm sure it's existance would be revealed (possibly published in a Haynes manual).
3) I haven't read anywhere yet that it's illegal to tamper with, though I do see it as being one of those types of things where one would have absolutely no reason to tamper with it...
The box will not stop speeding, but rather increase the amount of information the police have at their disposal.
The box isn't designed specifically for this, but then, neither is the home camera that might happen to catch the incident. Certainly a home video (or security tape, etc) would be submissible as evidence?
The issue is making any given citizen culpable for every minute of his/her life.
According to the article, the device only has enough memory to store a few seconds worth of data. Technically yes, every minute is being recorded, but at the same time it's constantly overwriting all but the last few seconds.
If the device was recording long-term, or transmitting data to anyone, I would agree with you and protest the device's existance.
In this case, however, the driver was being an idiot. This idiotic activity caused a fatality. There exists a device on the idiot's car that knows certain information about what happened.
When one is accused of a crime, the court can order a search of your home or vehicle, and even order people to testify what they know about an incident. Why is retrieving information from a device in your car -- one that happens to know certain important details -- any different?
I'll be one of the first people to jump up at privacy violations, but I think both that the privacy issues with this are minimal and that the benefits are enormous.
Not only that, but (in the US anyway) when there is probably cause that you did something illegal, and the court orders evidence of any kind -- you have no privacy. The court can order a search of your house or vehicle, phone records, and even require anyone who witnessed an incident to report on it (subpoenaed as witnesses).
So what is wrong with using existing evidence as recorded by your vehicle?
In the case where you did nothing wrong and there was not probable cause, you'd of course sue for wrongful arrest, privacy invasion, etc. I don't believe that was the case here. In fact, in most cases you'd serve some jail time just for being caught going more than double the speed limit, much less causing a fatality in the process.
Using technology as an indirect means of invading someones privacy is still invading privacy.\
Let's say that instead of this "black box" data recording device, it were a red-light camera installed at a near-by traffic light. The incident was caught on tape.
Would this be (in your opinion) submissible as evidence?
Suppose it was a home video camera of a nearby witness. Or a security camera nearby that, again, just happened to catch the incident.
Still ok?
Suppose the city has security cameras mounted on every street corner specifically for this purpose.
Is this okay?
Finally: if anything else in the car could be used as evidence -- skid marks created by the car, impact patterns, etc -- would these be submissible?
If the car happens to have a device that knows the speed (and other data) of the car at the time of impact, why would you not use this as evidence?
Granted, I'm as paranoid as they come, and I certainly do not want devices installed into cars specifically designed to catch me doing something "wrong". However, in this case you have to admit, the driver was being an idiot. If I were his car, I'd turn him in too...
Since airbags are dangerous...
...and an individual capable of doing something like that clearly has such a gross lack of understanding of cars and their capabilities that they probably thought 2 Fast 2 Furious was a good movie.
I believe the main reason that they aren't so dangerous these days is because of the data they have collected/are collecting. It's like having debug-logging enabled, and in cases like airbags I think it's a great thing. I know first-gen airbags had lots of problems, and this is one technology you really want to mature very quickly (and it did).
I agree fully. Speed limits, while perhaps a bit low in some cases, are there for a reason. Going 10 MPH over is one thing (and still ticket-able). Going more than double the limit -- you'd get jail time just for being caught, much less actually causing an accident involving a death.
And, both F&F movies were among the worse movies I'd ever seen...
This should have been a criminal conviction, especially with the supporting evidence from the black box.
Absolutely. Red-light cameras are sometimes used for evidence, despite that not being their purpose. Same for home video cameras. The fact that the "black box" wasn't made for this purpose is irrelevant (according to the article, this is the main argument against it); if it can be used to reliably pinpoint criminal activity (which this was, IMO), it should be used, no differently than if a red-light camera or home video camera had caught the incident on tape.
Now, if special devices were put into cars specifically for the purpose of logging (long-term) speed and other activities, I would be very much against that. Cases like this, however, don't strike the paranoid nerve in me, aside from the fact that some will want to use this as a reason to implement more invasive devices.
There's a big difference between continuous monitoring of speed and knowing the speed when a crash happens.
I agree, but according to the article (however technically correct it may be), the device only has enough memory to store a few seconds worth of data; thus, after an accident there will be data on the last few seconds. Beyond that, any obnoxious driving will be overwritten within a few seconds.
I personally think it's a good idea, provided it doesn't go any further (long-term storage, reporting in any way, etc). Regardless of the purpose for the stored data (to help improve air-bags, in this case), if the data is there and can prove someone was being truly negligent, with relative accuracy -- I say use it.
however, the Constitution prohibits Congress from codifying "an establishment of religion" as part of this country's law, which is what they did when they added "...under God..." and "In God We Trust" to the pledge and currency.
;)
I have always been under the impression that when the term "God" is used in these situations, it was not in reference to any particular god or religion.
While I personally don't trust in any god myself, I never thought One nation under God or In God we Trust were really trying to encourage or enforce a religious belief on me.
Not allowing me to buy beer on a Sunday -- now that's something I have a problem with...
At home I have multiple monitors and its a joy to program with. At work I have multiple computers. I challenge anyone to have this setup and not try to cut and paste between computers at least once.
You might want to check out Synergy. Far from perfect, but you can share a mouse and keyboard with multiple machines. You can copy and paste text, as well.
Though, it does further confuse the issue, making you want to drag 'n' drop files or drag a window from one machine to another...
Where did you get that they are receiving email for non-existant domains? Remember, HTTP and email are two entirely different things. I would venture to guess that they are not in fact responding to anything but port 80, and are only resolving normal hostnames (not MX records) for non-existant domains.
While I don't agree with how they just started doing this out of nowhere (it confused me on more than one occasion), I don't have any reason to believe that what they're doing will break anything (especially email). And if done correctly (which I'm not sure Verisign did), it could be quite useful, as long as it's blatantly clear that the domain is not a registered domain (H1 tags would be appropriate).
Also note that the Yahoo story in the link (liked as "Verisign Blinked") is extremely Verisign-biased, given that it's nothing more than a Verisign press release...
I tend to use the web for things I wouldn't have bothered with before. For example, about a year ago I recall reading an article about Chernobyl, and out of morbid curiosity I started researching the hell out of it. I never would have bothered before having the Internet; the novelty would have worn off long before I got to the library.
Similarly, if I'm watching a movie, often I want to know the name of a song, or I can't remember what other movie some actor was in... so I hit AllMusic.com or IMDB.com. Before the web I'd have just given up for lack of wanting to expend the effort.
On the other hand, I do use the web for news, pricing information, and other things for which there are/were alternatives. It does make it much easier to see who has the Maxtor 80 GB drives for the least money this week than it would be to actually (physically) shop around. When it comes to news, I can research a topic/event as much or as little as I like, in my own time.
So, I use the web for things I used to do in other ways, and I use it for new things I'd have not bothered with before. I wouldn't go as far as to say how did I live without it, because obviously I did -- but I would say that I'm so used to it now, I can't see going back to not having the web available.
World... fingertips... and all that jazz...
I haven't read the terms, but it's possible they're taking a risk, too: They have to sift through the claims to determine if they're valid. For the ones found invalid, they may have already paid the claimer.
Read the terms. They are not "paying" anyone, except as follows:
*If you qualify, your "Instant Settlement" is the credit that Lindows.com will give to you to immediately purchase products using the MSfreePC program in exchange for the right to process your settlement claim on your behalf as described in more detail in Step 7 and Step 8 of the Instant Settlement Wizard.
In other words, if you sign on through them, you get your settlement in the form of Lindows Fun Bucks (a term I just made up), and it is very misleading to those who don't read the fine print (I'd venture to guess, most).
It's very tricky in my opinion, and for once I actually agree with Microsoft's position on this for the above reasons.
They lie! My main bitch about the optical mice I've used is that because they are sliding around generally on the desk without a mousepad the feet that they glide on get horribly gummed up from dust...
:)
...so I picked up the newest, wired (USB) Intellimouse Explorer. Now I have my wired mouse back, slightly better ergonomics (side-buttons are smaller, harder to hit accidentally) along with the fast-movement precision.
I've been using an optical mouse since about 2000, and I still use a mouse pad. You can still do that
I just feel it glides more nicely on a mouse pad.
I'm actually on my third optical now; first was an MS Intellimouse Explorer (hate their software, but their hardware is good), and it was great except for extremely fast movements.
Then I got the wireless one, since my old one's buttons started getting erratic. The wireless tracked fast movements perfectly (I can't throw it off no matter how fast I try to move it), but the wireless part adds a few hundred ms of lag that's noticable, and it eats AA batteries...
Haven't tried a dual-optical yet, and I am curious, but so far the Logitech's I've tried didn't track as nicely as the MS ones (though I've only tried a few).
I wouldn't say that viruses or SPAM are good because people might learn from it. The fact is, people don't learn. Most people continue, years after the ILoveYou virus, to open unrequested executable attachments.
Most importantly: most people who *use* email as part of their job, have no clue about how things work, or what is an "executable" file versus a benign "document" file -- and with VBScript and exploits in document viewers, that line is quite blurred. But people don't care either way, they just call IT when there's a problem.
The solution is to quit standardising on insecure protocols, and poorly-written software. Nothing the end-user does should be able to cause dammage. More importantly, dammage shouldn't be an option for an outsider.
However -- I do agree that the more this type of thing happens, the more we learn about securing our networks/software. Many people require some kind of motivation to take action. Microsoft and their "push for security" is probably a good thing. Sure, it may still pale in comparison to most other software vendors, but no less, if Code Red, Blaster, etc can cause MS to produce more secure software, then all the better. This is, after all, what most businesses standardize on, and Micrsoft software is, after all, where most of these problems are at in the first place.
It's like how a company doesn't take action about a poor product until they're sued. It's still a good thing that they finally took action. Even if it required a lawsuit, bad PR, or whatever first, they are still taking some kind of action, making things better for the rest of us.
The thing is, if every ISP did this, your job would be easier: you would no longer need to run an SMTP relay for your customers (with the associated "pop before send" or "bad mailfrom" protection you're likely using now).
My ISP is not blocking port 25, and I have a colocated server -- but I send my mail through the ISP's relay. This way I have no reason to run any kind of SMTP relay on my machine; if it's local, it's accepted, otherwise it's rejected.
I'm not sure why hosting customers would want to relay their email through their web server, when nearly all ISPs provide this same service locally. I used to work for a web host, and I know customers aren't that easy to convince, but the fact remains, there's no reason to relay your outgoing email through your web server.
I'm all for port 25 blocking, if it helps curb spam. If we could just get rid of ISPs filtering spam without the customers' knowledge (Earthlink likes to block our order notifications -- emails the customer *paid* to recieve) then I'd be happy.
always seems to be the case, my expectations for 2013 are as follows:
- Computers will be much, much faster
- Operating systems will be much, much more bloated
- Our demands will have gone up
- Mozilla will have become sentient, and will be its own project maintainer
And the end result will be roughly the same. Except that last part, that will be new.
Alpha-blending at the OS-level will be not just standard equipment, but nearly required. Games will be more beautiful, but will come on 3 DVDs and take 3 or 4 minutes to load up, giving about 30-50 FPS on a "fast" machine. (Seriously, load up UT2K3 on a "fast" machine, it looks nice but is very slow...)
The video card will be about the size of the motherboard, and will require more cooling than the CPU. Audio cards will come with fans (if that sounds weird, what if I told you, in 1993, about fans on video cards, water-cooling, or heat-spreaders on RAM modules? Case-mods, LED-fans,
We'll keep hearing about how magnetic media is coming to an end, reaching the end of Moore's law, even while Maxtor is releasing 4.5 TB disk drives, and Seagate (among others) announces a new standard to replace the SATA that we'll have all become quite familiar with.
Video capture/tuner cards will be standard equipment (like audio today), and maybe -- just maybe -- by then we'll have some kind of industry standard on digital broadcast (cable/sattelite). Eh, probably not...
IMO anyway.
The "hackers" would prefer a legally signed bootloader, since it would not have the side effect of allowing pirated games to run on the Xbox.
It's not that simple. A boot-loader can likely load anything -- not necessarily Linux. So suppose a boot-loader were available, and someone figured out a way to load a pirated game with it. Now people can pirate said game with no hardware mods at all.
At least with the exploit, some hardware modding is required, which most users -- even users who frequently pirate software/games -- won't bother with.
So really neither option is much better than the other. MS likely won't even justify this with a response.
Despite all the people who hate Metallica for various reasons ('selling out' on their musical style, becoming mainstream, fighting Napster), aren't they taking steps in the right direction?
I have to agree. I actually don't care for the new album all that much (and I did go out and buy it), but after reading the Lars interview for the first time today, this is exactly what Lars wanted. He admits that the Internet just may be the future of music distribution, but what's lacking with Napster et al is control.
Of course, they have a bit more control with their new setup. And, I don't doubt one bit that they are trying to win back some fans that may have been lost over the Napster issue, but honestly, they weren't being technophobic or anything like that, they simply wanted to have some say in the distribution of their works.
I do still feel some of the tactics were too harsh, but the interview does clear up quite a bit of it for me...
You know, I would have said the same thing, but I just read the linked interview (I had no idea that took place) and my opinion has changed a bit. Back in the day (around or just before the interview) they said a lot of things, but only choice quotes gained a lot of attention.
/., but I rather enjoyed it that way), I realize that some of what they said was due to lack of knowledge/experience, and some was simply taken out of context. Lars even admits to changing his opinions on a couple issues, and he does make a few good points...
;)
After reading the interview (which is surprisingly unedited, even for
I still enjoy the Camp Chaos Cartoons on the subject though
The protocol version number does not indicate the maximum data transfer rate supported by a device, only the maximum supported by that protocol version. To rephraze, a USB device (or host) can support USB 2.0 features without necessarily supporting the "High-Speed" data rates that the 2.0 spec allows for. The 2.0 spec does not require that it be a High-Speed device.
The "Full-Speed" and "High-Speed" designations have been there all along. Only recently did companies (or their marketing departments) realize they can claim "USB 2.0", by merely adding the minimum features required by the 2.0 spec (likely all via firmware upgrades, as opposed to requiring faster, more expensive hardware), in order to do better sales.
The idea is that the majority of users do not need 480 MB/s USB to run their mice/keyboards/printers. Companies are losing customers because the customers think "High-Speed" USB would be beneficial, and they think that 1.1 == Slower. Just like AMD was (potentially) losing customers because of the "1.8 GHz > 1.533 GHz" mentality.
I hate when companies assume they know better than their own customers, and pull shit like this in hopes most people will never know/care. I didn't know this was being done until today. I even had to check to make sure my new motherboard did in fact support High-Speed USB 2.0 (luckily it does, or I'd be complaining to someone)...
The article's wording could have been better (rather, the USB Forum could have used better wording), but it's still a very sneaky thing in any case, and one more thing I know (now) to watch for when buying USB devices/controllers...
Yeah, but I bet you it'll be like Windows XP's theoretical ability to use FAT 32 - it can read it, but it won't actually let you format in FAT32 when doing an installation.
That's funny, my laptop is WinXP Pro with FAT32. Since the install partition was less than 10GB, XP's installer recommended FAT32. I went with that so I can share files with my RedHat installation.
And guess what? Its a proprietry file system that other OS's won't read *coughlinuxcough*
I agree there, but my feeling is simply this: don't use WinFS on a dual-boot machine. It will still network with a separate Linux box just fine.
For me the only time it's even necessary to do dual-boot is on the laptop, but in any case, if you're setting up a dual-boot machine and don't take the filesystem types into consideration, well, that's just poor planning.
I'm sure Longhorn will be compatible with FAT32, but if not then there's a valid concern (Linux still can't do much with NTFS and likely won't touch WinFS for years to come)...
WHAT IF...
:)
Highly improbable in my opinion, but imagine how that would piss off Microsoft, having contributed money to the whole thing...
In reality, SCO is just desparate. IBM will crush them, or maybe buy them just to shut them the hell up (which would be nice -- IBM would then own said code and would hopefully continue to distribute it GPL).
I just hope they come out with a better plug that the cigarette lighter plugs we're used to. I can't think of anytime I've ever seen anyone who actually uses those things to light cigaretters and apart from doing that they're absolutly horrid.
It always pisses me off when I see a newer car with no lighter -- but like 5 "power outlets". I do believe you can get a lighter and a cup-holder ashtray on request, though.
The lighter is extremely handy for its intended purpose. Ever tried to flick a Bic with wind from the windows and/or vents, while keeping a hand on the wheel? The 12v lighter is great for these occasions.
Now, my argument would be to keep the lighter around (maybe a new, non-plug-compatible shape to avoid accidental usage with 12v devices), but have a separate accessory outlet design -- completely unrelated to the lighter.
Personally I think there are too many 12v devices for this to be practical. Not just stereos, radar detectors, and phone chargers, but geeky (more niche, less likely to be redesigned) things like ham radios and such...
The perfect comprimise IMO is to use a dual-rail power supply of +/-12v. You'd get full backward-compatibility for 12-14v devices, and a full 24-28v source for devices that need it (with a special 3-wire power cable). Two motorcycle-sized 12v batteries could be used (or a new battery with a center-tap, whatever).
But the auto industry doesn't listen to me. Otherwise we'd still have cigarette lighters and ashtrays...