Being monitored by private outfits is also an invasion of privacy, and anyone who thinks it isn't is in need of medication.
So you think that burglar alarms, etc., should be illegal because they invade a burglar's privacy? There's a difference between spying on someone in a public place (or on someone else's property) and monitoring a person on your own property.
I don't have to go to MIT. I do have to live in a country.
You don't like the security measures? Vote with your feet. Don't go there. Also, if a private company violates your rights (say, by monitoring you without your permission (illegal in some states), it's much easier to sue them than to sue the government.
Another example: I hate being photographed and videotaped. I avoid it when possible. (My own parents have less than 10 photographs of me taken within the last 25 years (most from my brother's wedding, where I was Best Man), and no movies/videotapes.) Nonetheless, I recognize a private entity's (person/company) right to provide security for his/her/its/their assets by requiring keys of some sort to access its facilities, or to install monitoring equipment (as long as it notifies me that it is doing so). Similarly, since I am not forced to drive, I do not strenuously object to personal information (e.g., photo or fingerprint) being required to get a driver's license, even though I would prefer not to have to provide them (and, if I had a say in the matter, which I don't (your voting comment to the contrary), I would vote against such measures).
That can be done at production time. When I was a kid, I did some experimentation with electolysis. I placed two inverted test tubes over the two electrodes, and was thus able to collect the oxygen and hydrogen separately. I don't see any reason why this can't be done on a larger scale.
The compressor needed to store the hydrogen can also be driven by solar power. (Oxygen doesn't need to be stored, as it can be obtained from the atmosphere (at least, on this planet at the current time).) Given the current cost of solar cells, my guess is that a compressor and hydrogen storage tank are not that expensive reatively. The main additional expense would be the fuel cells. I don't know how fuel cells compare with solar cells in $/kwh, so I can't say whether the energy storage system and power recovery system (fuel cells) would cost more than the solar cell part of the system.
I do agree with your main point, that an effective energy storage system is important, and must be considered when determining the cost of the entire solar-powered system.
I think that drying dress shirts on clothes hangers is the best
Always use plastic hangers if you are going to do this.. I did this on enamel-coated wire hangers that had microscopic (or, at least, not-visible-to-the-naked-eye) cracks in the enamel, and some of my shirts got rust spots in the shoulders.
The thing people don't seem to understand about the erosion of freedom is that it happens gradually. America won't turn into a totalitarian police state overnight.
It is not the government that is implementing the RFID security system; it is a private university. I have no problems with a private institution implementing security measures on its own property (as long as the presence of said measures is revealed to visitors). I would have a problem if a government mandated that all persons must carry RFID-tagged cards (or some other form of identification) at all times. But that is not the case here.
How are you going to prove there is no chance of me getting cancer and dieing [sic] from the radiation released from a nuclear plant? Until you can, its [sic] just too unsafe
How are you going to prove that there is no chance of getting cancer and dying from posting to Slashdot? Until you can, it's just too unsafe for you to continue posting here. (And before you tell me that there is is no difference between posting online and writing to your local paper -- our bodies have learned to adapt to print media, not to electronic communication.) There are plenty of alternative technologies that don't involve the Internet at all. Posting to Slashdot is just too unsafe to use.
Yes, I laughed and smiled once or twice myself. The writing seems too "literary" to have been written by the average high-school teacher. It looks more like it was done by a professional author. (That is why I wrote that it claims to be a true account, not that it acutally is a true account.)
I am curious, what were the flaws that you found in the story?
Reducing the rate 10 points to 44 percent by 2006 could create 1.1 million new jobs, increase economic growth by US$170 billion, and generate another US$15 billion in tax revenues.
- according to the Business Software Alliance.
Which, like the RIAA, ignores the fact that many, if not most "pirates" would not buy the software/music, but would instead go without. Many "pirates" can not afford to buy the music/software that they download.
(I'm not saying that this gives them any right to infringe on others' copyrights. I'm just saying that the BSA's figures are exaggerated.)
If that doesn't fit the definition of a "contract" than I guess I don't know what the word "contract" means.
The difference is that if the GPL was an actual contract, the copyright holder could force you to uphold it. This means that the original author could sue those making derivative copies to force them to release their source code changes. They can't. All they can do now is sue them to prevent them from continuing to use the code.
For example, if I were to release source code under a license that gave me your house, and you used the source code, I could not sue you later on and try to take your house; all that I could do is sue you for copyright infringement. If we had an actual signed contract (or even a signed license agreement), I could sue you for breach of contract/license and try to take your house.
are you allowed to make copies of your changed version to use on multiple computers within your own company?
You need to make the source code available only to those to whom you distribute the binary. It seems to me that the requirements would be satisfied by putting the source code on any machine on which you also place the binary, or by placing the source code on a machine accessible by those machines on which the binary is placed, but not necessarily accessible by the outside world.
If the man was coming from a BASIC programming background, his belief may have been understandable. Some (very old) BASIC interpreters used to parse each source line each time it was executed. Doing it that way saved memory (no intermediate code to store).
I'm a fan of choosing some letters of a meaningful sentence
Why not use the entire sentence? It's much less susceptible to brute-force attack, especially if you deliberately misspell some of the words. For example, "moh,Larry,Curly.3stuges" seems like it would be harder for a password-cracking program to guess than "mLC.3s". (If I were to write a password cracker, I would have it test for abbreviations of words as well as words, so the abbreviation of a phrase would never be more secure than the phrase itself.) I also find that the phrase itself is easier to remember.
"stff.tRtv0tse" or "spacethefinalfronteer.theseRthevoyages0fthesmarts hipEnterprise"? "87ya,Rfbf" or "87yearsago,Rfathersbrangforth"? "tAbr0tr!" or "theyresAbatroom0ntherite!"? etc.
Of course, if you're logging in several times a day, you probably want to use the shorter password.
I don't see the U.S. in decline in absolute terms, but rather other countries are producing better engineers than they have in the past. So, in relative terms, the U.S. has a declining lead
Great Britain didn't decline in "absolute terms" 100 years ago, but the Americans surpassed them. Eventually, G.B lost much of its empire. China will probably surpass the United States within 50 years or so. Eventually, we will lose much of our empire.
(Yes, I know that we don't have an Empire in the traditional, historical sense, but we have one nonetheless. Our empire is more commercial/economic than militaristic; however, as recent events in Iraq demonstrate, we are not above using military force where our economic interests are threatened. Once China gains dominance, it will be much more difficult to do this.)
why is it always 'you and I' and not 'you and me'?
It isn't. Sometimes, "you and me" is correct. One way to determine which form is correct is to drop the "you and" part and determine whether "I" or "me" fits better. For example, "The recession affects you and me more than it does the President." This may actually sound incorrect (due to "you and I" being drilled into our heads back in Grade/High School), but it is, in fact, correct.
This is also true for "X and/or I/me/myself / he/him/himself / she/her/herself / we/us/ourselves" for any X. Examples: "He and I fixed Gina's car, then she drove him and me home." "George is not as smart as Condaleeza or I." "Millie and I bought the present for Bill, then Jack and we gave it to his wife and him." "Send a memo to my boss or me, and she or I will get back to you."
Actually, the reason that "its" (possessive) is not apostrophized is that "it" is a pronoun. Pronouns have different rules than other nouns. For example, "his" and "her"/"hers" (the possessive forms of "he" and "she") don't have apostrophes, either; nor does "their". Because of this, the easy way to determine if the word "its" should be apostrophized is to substitute "his" or "her" in the sentence. If it makes some sense (other than the sex), then don't apostrophize. If it makes no sense whatsoever, but substituting "it is" does, then "its" should be apostrophized.
The reason that "his" and "her" don't have this problem is that the possessive form is spelled differently from the "is" contraction for "he" and "she" ("he's" vs. "his, "she's" vs. "her" or "hers"), whereas for "its", it's spelled the same, except for the presence or absence of the apostrophe ("its" vs. "it's"). (I have never seen "hi's" or "he'r", but I have occasionally seen "her's", and I once saw "it'self".)
Confusion with "it is" has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, other nouns wouldn't be apostrophized, either. For example, in the sentence "John's going to get Bob's car.", "John's" is a contraction for "John is", but "Bob's" is the possessive "belonging to Bob".
Even if you can detect the evesdropping, by that time, it's too late; the evesdropper already has part of the message. Granted, it's only a single bit, but it might be the most important bit of the message.
More seriously, depending on the protocol, the evesdropper may be able to intercept many bits before the intrusion is detected. For example, if TCP/IP is implemented over the QC stream, the intruder may be able to get an entire packet before the receiver sends a "Stop; we're being evesdropped!" message back to the transmitter. (Maybe more, with TCP/IP's sliding window.) If the entire message fits in one packet ("Attack at dawn."), then the message has been compromised. One way to avoid this would be to use a comm layer lower than TCP/IP that ACKs each bit, but this could be slow. Another way would be to use the QC channel to exchange very large keys, then use them in another encryption layer if eavesdropping has not occured during key exchange.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between spying on someone in a public place (or on someone else's property) and monitoring a person on your own property.
You're welcome.
I don't have to go to MIT.
I do have to live in a country.
You don't like the security measures?
Vote with your feet.
Don't go there.
Also, if a private company violates your rights (say, by monitoring you without your permission (illegal in some states), it's much easier to sue them than to sue the government.
Another example:
I hate being photographed and videotaped.
I avoid it when possible.
(My own parents have less than 10 photographs of me taken within the last 25 years (most from my brother's wedding, where I was Best Man), and no movies/videotapes.)
Nonetheless, I recognize a private entity's (person/company) right to provide security for his/her/its/their assets by requiring keys of some sort to access its facilities, or to install monitoring equipment (as long as it notifies me that it is doing so).
Similarly, since I am not forced to drive, I do not strenuously object to personal information (e.g., photo or fingerprint) being required to get a driver's license, even though I would prefer not to have to provide them (and, if I had a say in the matter, which I don't (your voting comment to the contrary), I would vote against such measures).
When I was a kid, I did some experimentation with electolysis.
I placed two inverted test tubes over the two electrodes, and was thus able to collect the oxygen and hydrogen separately.
I don't see any reason why this can't be done on a larger scale.
The compressor needed to store the hydrogen can also be driven by solar power.
(Oxygen doesn't need to be stored, as it can be obtained from the atmosphere (at least, on this planet at the current time).)
Given the current cost of solar cells, my guess is that a compressor and hydrogen storage tank are not that expensive reatively.
The main additional expense would be the fuel cells.
I don't know how fuel cells compare with solar cells in $/kwh, so I can't say whether the energy storage system and power recovery system (fuel cells) would cost more than the solar cell part of the system.
I do agree with your main point, that an effective energy storage system is important, and must be considered when determining the cost of the entire solar-powered system.
I did this on enamel-coated wire hangers that had microscopic (or, at least, not-visible-to-the-naked-eye) cracks in the enamel, and some of my shirts got rust spots in the shoulders.
I have no problems with a private institution implementing security measures on its own property (as long as the presence of said measures is revealed to visitors).
I would have a problem if a government mandated that all persons must carry RFID-tagged cards (or some other form of identification) at all times.
But that is not the case here.
Until you can, it's just too unsafe for you to continue posting here.
(And before you tell me that there is is no difference between posting online and writing to your local paper -- our bodies have learned to adapt to print media, not to electronic communication.)
There are plenty of alternative technologies that don't involve the Internet at all.
Posting to Slashdot is just too unsafe to use.
Yes, I laughed and smiled once or twice myself.
The writing seems too "literary" to have been written by the average high-school teacher.
It looks more like it was done by a professional author.
(That is why I wrote that it claims to be a true account, not that it acutally is a true account.)
I am curious, what were the flaws that you found in the story?
It was a rocket car, not a jet car, and this story claims to be a true account of the actual events.
Many "pirates" can not afford to buy the music/software that they download.
(I'm not saying that this gives them any right to infringe on others' copyrights.
I'm just saying that the BSA's figures are exaggerated.)
This means that the original author could sue those making derivative copies to force them to release their source code changes.
They can't.
All they can do now is sue them to prevent them from continuing to use the code.
For example, if I were to release source code under a license that gave me your house, and you used the source code, I could not sue you later on and try to take your house; all that I could do is sue you for copyright infringement.
If we had an actual signed contract (or even a signed license agreement), I could sue you for breach of contract/license and try to take your house.
Disclaimer: IANAL
It seems to me that the requirements would be satisfied by putting the source code on any machine on which you also place the binary, or by placing the source code on a machine accessible by those machines on which the binary is placed, but not necessarily accessible by the outside world.
If the man was coming from a BASIC programming background, his belief may have been understandable.
Some (very old) BASIC interpreters used to parse each source line each time it was executed.
Doing it that way saved memory (no intermediate code to store).
In case you are interested, I got the lyrics from this page on this site.
Here's some info on "Louie Louie".
It's much less susceptible to brute-force attack, especially if you deliberately misspell some of the words.
For example, "moh,Larry,Curly.3stuges" seems like it would be harder for a password-cracking program to guess than "mLC.3s".
(If I were to write a password cracker, I would have it test for abbreviations of words as well as words, so the abbreviation of a phrase would never be more secure than the phrase itself.)
I also find that the phrase itself is easier to remember.
"stff.tRtv0tse" or "spacethefinalfronteer.theseRthevoyages0fthesmart
"87ya,Rfbf" or "87yearsago,Rfathersbrangforth"?
"tAbr0tr!" or "theyresAbatroom0ntherite!"?
etc.
Of course, if you're logging in several times a day, you probably want to use the shorter password.
I'm surprised that 3.14 isn't in there (or 3.1415926535, etc.).
And what the heck are "240653C9467E45", "3ep5w2u", "3098z", and "57gbzb"?
Eventually, G.B lost much of its empire.
China will probably surpass the United States within 50 years or so.
Eventually, we will lose much of our empire.
(Yes, I know that we don't have an Empire in the traditional, historical sense, but we have one nonetheless.
Our empire is more commercial/economic than militaristic; however, as recent events in Iraq demonstrate, we are not above using military force where our economic interests are threatened.
Once China gains dominance, it will be much more difficult to do this.)
Sometimes, "you and me" is correct.
One way to determine which form is correct is to drop the "you and" part and determine whether "I" or "me" fits better.
For example, "The recession affects you and me more than it does the President."
This may actually sound incorrect (due to "you and I" being drilled into our heads back in Grade/High School), but it is, in fact, correct.
This is also true for "X and/or I/me/myself / he/him/himself / she/her/herself / we/us/ourselves" for any X.
Examples:
"He and I fixed Gina's car, then she drove him and me home."
"George is not as smart as Condaleeza or I."
"Millie and I bought the present for Bill, then Jack and we gave it to his wife and him."
"Send a memo to my boss or me, and she or I will get back to you."
Actually, the reason that "its" (possessive) is not apostrophized is that "it" is a pronoun.
Pronouns have different rules than other nouns.
For example, "his" and "her"/"hers" (the possessive forms of "he" and "she") don't have apostrophes, either; nor does "their".
Because of this, the easy way to determine if the word "its" should be apostrophized is to substitute "his" or "her" in the sentence.
If it makes some sense (other than the sex), then don't apostrophize.
If it makes no sense whatsoever, but substituting "it is" does, then "its" should be apostrophized.
The reason that "his" and "her" don't have this problem is that the possessive form is spelled differently from the "is" contraction for "he" and "she" ("he's" vs. "his, "she's" vs. "her" or "hers"), whereas for "its", it's spelled the same, except for the presence or absence of the apostrophe ("its" vs. "it's").
(I have never seen "hi's" or "he'r", but I have occasionally seen "her's", and I once saw "it'self".)
Confusion with "it is" has nothing to do with it.
Otherwise, other nouns wouldn't be apostrophized, either.
For example, in the sentence "John's going to get Bob's car.", "John's" is a contraction for "John is", but "Bob's" is the possessive "belonging to Bob".
This is Slashdot.
Granted, it's only a single bit, but it might be the most important bit of the message.
More seriously, depending on the protocol, the evesdropper may be able to intercept many bits before the intrusion is detected.
For example, if TCP/IP is implemented over the QC stream, the intruder may be able to get an entire packet before the receiver sends a "Stop; we're being evesdropped!" message back to the transmitter.
(Maybe more, with TCP/IP's sliding window.)
If the entire message fits in one packet ("Attack at dawn."), then the message has been compromised.
One way to avoid this would be to use a comm layer lower than TCP/IP that ACKs each bit, but this could be slow.
Another way would be to use the QC channel to exchange very large keys, then use them in another encryption layer if eavesdropping has not occured during key exchange.