Commercial speech should absolutely be as protected as other speech.
What people tend to do, and Americans in particular, is to confuse "freedom of speech" with "guaranteed right to an audience". Preferably on somebody else's bill.
And THAT particular bird is not going to fly.
You have the right to say whatever you want to say (well, almost, nowadays). You do not have the right to force me to listen to any of it. You do not have the right to force somebody else to carry your message.
You're missing the point entirely. China is the world's fastest-growing economy, and has the economic potential of twice the EU and US combined.
Whatever the Chinese develop has a very large chance of BEING the Next Big Thing that overtakes current standards.
It's a matter of bowing to the largest economy. It's how it has worked in the past, how it works now, and nothing seems to change the fact in the future.
including why three Italians should be the first on Mars
They need to set up the pizza parlor for when others land, so we'll have some decent place to eat.
It's pretty much the only way to safeguard the future of the Italian language.
These particular three individuals are just fleeing from the Italian Mob in a new creative way.
Italian culture involves measuring large distances as the required number of spaghetti straws. They are also bringing a very large kettle for the feast afterwards.
They were banished from Italy for speaking calmly and not even gesticulating in the slightest while asking for some everyday item, like a subway ticket.
They are ordinary Italian drivers who just need a little extra room for parking maneouvers.
More information is also available at the equipment manufacturer's website.
To put it in technical terms, there's not a chance in hell anything on the equipment manufacturer's website after a scandal like this can be called "information", even when stretching the definition of the word until it hurts.
If you want information about a product, you can't trust the vendor. End of story, unfortunately.
The reason this is considered funny (perhaps not by moderators, but in general) is why the Swedes took to the streets for the abolishment of IP harassment yesterday.
Your wish about laws and treaties - or rather, effective laws and treaties - ain't gonna happen.
Anything man CAN do, man WILL do. Regardless of if rules are in the way.
Even if we had such a thing as global laws (which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, either), the difference is that nanotech engineering would just be performed by outlaws instead of official scientists. Anything that carries a reward will get done, by somebody, somewhere. The greater the potential reward, the more people will be attempting it.
Whether it is legal is secondary to many enough people that it won't really matter whether it is.
In other news, Center Dedicated To Promoting Specific Technology reports that Technology, which is just around the corner, will revolutionize the economy, end world hunger, provide limitless energy, and make your teeth whiter while you sleep.
All in about 20 years, by which you will well have forgotten this press release.
I live in a place where I have difficulty finding a cab. If I call for one on the phone, they tell me to be out in the street waving for the cab, or they will drive past without stopping in the area. I never go out on a Friday or Saturday night without a bulletproof vest, and I'm always armed with at least one combat knife - often several.
This is where you live online. This is why people won't come to your place to deliver pizza. Or SMTP, or any other service.
Most tax laws, standards, and regulations are expressed in basbelopp (base amount of money). For example, a regulation can say that you may earn up to two basbelopp per year on your hobby without being taxed for it.
(An utterly improbable regulation, but anyway.)
Then, every year, the national economic institute looks at inflation and other economic trends, and establishes the new basbelopp.
It sure as hell works better than hardcoding a number into law. Although, some regulations do hardcode such numbers here too... usually regulations involving fines. Speeding fines is one example. I was recently fined $220 for going 183 on the freeway with my Hayabusa (a bad-ass motorcycle).:-)
Now, listen. Google's email service is not about the one-gigabyte limit.
Ok, so it's a huge number, and so everybody seems to have stared themselves blind at it, and missed the print underneath.
Google's email service is about having your email searchable. About retrieving old email by searching for a part of it. About eliminating the need for folders, dates, keywords to remember your mail. About a all-in-one-bucket, always-available mail store, that's accessed by searching rather than sorting and browsing.
Forget about the one-gigabyte limit. That's just tweaking parameters that others already have. It's nothing really innovative.
Functions in named classes inside template classes, that are not written inline.
Example: You create a storage class (my example was a self-redistributing binary tree). The template class Storage<T> has a subclass Storage<T>::Element that holds three Element pointers (parent, left child, right child) and one const <T> pointer.
Of course, the Element class has a constructor, a destructor, a copy constructor, and an assignment operator defined. (Copy constructor and assignment op may not be formally required, but my experience says it's a very good idea to define them in anything that holds pointers).
protected:
class Element
{
public:
Element();
Element (const Element& source);
~Element();
const Element& operator= (const Element& source);
private:
void Destroy();
const Element& CopyFrom (const Element& source);
} }
// === IMPLEMENTATION ===
template <T> void SimpleBinaryTree<T>::Element::Destroy() { // Clean up, common code for destructor and copy ops }
template <T> const Element& SimpleBinaryTree<T>::Element::CopyFro m (const Element& source) { // Copy from 'source' - common code for // copy ctor and assignment op }
This code will produce an error. VC++ does not handle functions in named classes inside templates that are not declared inline.
(I may have missed some syntactic detail - It's been a long time since I wrote C++; I write C# these days. But the above annoyed me to no end. It works fine with gcc, which on the other hand can't handle when the functions are implemented inline, which should also work):-(
Side note: I absolutely love Microsoft's dev tools. This particular example is the exception to me, not the rule.
So what am I going to do with my Bluetooth desktop?
Put it there in the corner, next to the Cordless Desktop, the Logitech one that used proprietary radio. Yeah, right there, next to the infrared keyboard.
If you're using privacy to hide the truth, then there's something wrong with what you are doing, and you know that.
Uhm, yeah.
I used my privacy to hide from the government that I was actively trying to overthrow it, because I saw it as corrupt, misantropic, a threat to society and our way of life, and to humanity as a whole.
This was the truth, and I used my privacy to hide it.
This was in Germany, 1938, before the bloodshed began.
Or in Iraq, recently.
Or in Rwanda, a couple of years ago.
Or in Bosnia, a few more years ago.
Or in...
It is not freedom if you are only allowed to agree with the government. The right to be and do wrong is what defines freedom.
The notion that "if you are not doing something wrong, you have nothing to hide" have been applied to all fascist and police states. Don't let the attitude creep into mainstream American thinking. That is dangerous.
Just how much hacking is needed to take the red light out of a consumer camcorder?
On mine (a JVC DV), it can be done from a "System Settings" menu on the camera itself... but OTOH, I imagine most people who own the camera has never seen that menu ("what do you mean, you can set the time?").
They might have some information there about how well the stuff will conduct heat, but I got a lousy grade in Chemistry, so I'll leave it to the experts.;)
A liquid conducts heat EXTREMELY well. You're thinking in terms of a solid, where atoms are fixed and have to transfer energy to each other. However, in a liquid, if one portion of the liquid is heated, this creates a stream of molecules in the liquid to disperse the heat. The heated molecules will actively move away from the heat source, giving room to cooler liquid molecules, which is a hell of a lot more efficient than normal solid-state heat conductivity.
Additionally, it has an heat capacitivity of about 1.1 kJ/kg/degree C, which compares to 4.2 for water. This means that 1.1 kJ (1.1 kW for one second) will heat one kilogram of the stuff one degree Celsius.
One can use this number for some interesting math. A normal box draws maybe 250W, all of which becomes heat. The density of the stuff is 160% of water's. I guesstimate that my tower will hold about twelve liters of water, or about 20 kg of this stuff.
(Note the scientifically correct notation "this stuff".)
Anyway, 20 kg exposed to 250W means that this stuff will heat by 0.75 degrees C every minute if the heat is not dissipated. Assuming a room temperature of 25 deg C, and an electronics-critical point of 45 deg C (the upper bound of operating temperature for some things I've seen; hell, some even have 40 tops), we have a span of 20 degrees, or about 30 minutes of operation until components are out of spec in their operating environment.
Again, this assumes that no heat is dissipated. A miditower probably has about 0.5 to 0.75 square meters of dissipating surface, with good heat transfer from this stuff inside.
Anybody knows if hard drives are built to operate immersed in liquid?:-)
Can we really trust closed-source venders, such as Cisco, to develop secure products that are free of backdoors?
You can't trust open-source for this, either. Not unless you personally constructed every piece of the device, from the source code, to everything that interacts with the source code, including the compiler, the EEPROM burners, and the chipsets on the device itself.
How do you know that the open source you are looking at actually is the one running in your device? You don't.
How do you know that the code you are looking at, assuming that it is running in the device, wasn't modified by a malicious compiler? You don't.
How do you know that the compiled code, assuming it is compiled correctly, wasn't altered in the transfer to the device? You don't.
How do you know the other onboard chips aren't built with a backdoor, patching, hooking or circumventing whatever code is put in the device? You don't.
What it boils down to is that trust is a very difficult animal, and at some point, you need to draw the line. Looking at the source is a meager guarantee for the device behaving well, in the case of a malicious vendor.
The bottom line is that there are so many covert channels to insert code into your overall system today, as long as they are carried on the normal device acquisision channels, that you can't defend against an attack by a malicious vendor. What you can do is to count on their risk analysis, and expecting them to want to stay in business just as much as you do. It's not much, but it's pretty much the best we got.
This is extremely similar to a recent Outlook vulnerability that was patched don't-know-when.
So, what this Mac trojan does is to present itself with dual types, knowing that one (the file extension) will be presented to the user, and the other (type/creator metadata) to the operating system. The user sees a harmless file, and the operating system sees executable code.
The recent Outlook vulnerability did the same when rendering HTML mail; it used the MIME type to determine if to render, and the file extension to determine how to render. Thus, you would attach an executable (.exe) with MIME type image/jpeg, and reference it in a HTML mail. Outlook would try to render the image/jpeg, and called the shell for rendering the.exe. Boom.
So, this is nothing new, but I think we'll see more of this as complexity arises. It's not hard to make a complex system; it's hard to make a SIMPLE system.
If you look at handheld power tools, you'll find that almost none of them use NiMH or LiIon batteries we're used to in electronics. They still use NiCd.
Despite the environmental issue.
Despite the fact that the batteries suck and die, even! Nickel-Cadmium are a pain to recharge to not have them wander off into la-la-land.
And you know what? Because NiCd batteries still are the best we got when it comes to low internal resistance, meaning quick discharge. Power tools tend to NEED quick discharge. You don't care if you need to change batteries every 30 minutes as long as you have the tool in hand without power wiring.
Electronics, on the other hand, need long battery life, and so live in another world.
The possibility of quick discharge is a feature, not a bug.
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
Not in the least. The US vehemently opposed the International Crime Court, and when it became clear that the court was becoming reality, the US fought to have citizens of the United States immune to prosecution there.
So one need not wonder at all, a quick peek behind the shoulder reveals how the US government reacts to matters such as these when applied to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Commercial speech should absolutely be as protected as other speech.
What people tend to do, and Americans in particular, is to confuse "freedom of speech" with "guaranteed right to an audience". Preferably on somebody else's bill.
And THAT particular bird is not going to fly.
You have the right to say whatever you want to say (well, almost, nowadays). You do not have the right to force me to listen to any of it. You do not have the right to force somebody else to carry your message.
You're missing the point entirely. China is the world's fastest-growing economy, and has the economic potential of twice the EU and US combined.
Whatever the Chinese develop has a very large chance of BEING the Next Big Thing that overtakes current standards.
It's a matter of bowing to the largest economy. It's how it has worked in the past, how it works now, and nothing seems to change the fact in the future.
including why three Italians should be the first on Mars
More information is also available at the equipment manufacturer's website.
To put it in technical terms, there's not a chance in hell anything on the equipment manufacturer's website after a scandal like this can be called "information", even when stretching the definition of the word until it hurts.
If you want information about a product, you can't trust the vendor. End of story, unfortunately.
Anywhere doesn't start with N, but Nowhere does.
Hear Your Music Nowhere?
The reason this is considered funny (perhaps not by moderators, but in general) is why the Swedes took to the streets for the abolishment of IP harassment yesterday.
What are you doing?
Your wish about laws and treaties - or rather, effective laws and treaties - ain't gonna happen.
Anything man CAN do, man WILL do. Regardless of if rules are in the way.
Even if we had such a thing as global laws (which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, either), the difference is that nanotech engineering would just be performed by outlaws instead of official scientists. Anything that carries a reward will get done, by somebody, somewhere. The greater the potential reward, the more people will be attempting it.
Whether it is legal is secondary to many enough people that it won't really matter whether it is.
In other news, Center Dedicated To Promoting Specific Technology reports that Technology, which is just around the corner, will revolutionize the economy, end world hunger, provide limitless energy, and make your teeth whiter while you sleep.
All in about 20 years, by which you will well have forgotten this press release.
Nothing to see here, move along.
The equivalents exist IRL too.
I live in a place where I have difficulty finding a cab. If I call for one on the phone, they tell me to be out in the street waving for the cab, or they will drive past without stopping in the area. I never go out on a Friday or Saturday night without a bulletproof vest, and I'm always armed with at least one combat knife - often several.
This is where you live online. This is why people won't come to your place to deliver pizza. Or SMTP, or any other service.
It works this way in Sweden, Europe, at least.
:-)
Most tax laws, standards, and regulations are expressed in basbelopp (base amount of money). For example, a regulation can say that you may earn up to two basbelopp per year on your hobby without being taxed for it.
(An utterly improbable regulation, but anyway.)
Then, every year, the national economic institute looks at inflation and other economic trends, and establishes the new basbelopp.
It sure as hell works better than hardcoding a number into law. Although, some regulations do hardcode such numbers here too... usually regulations involving fines. Speeding fines is one example. I was recently fined $220 for going 183 on the freeway with my Hayabusa (a bad-ass motorcycle).
Now, listen. Google's email service is not about the one-gigabyte limit.
Ok, so it's a huge number, and so everybody seems to have stared themselves blind at it, and missed the print underneath.
Google's email service is about having your email searchable. About retrieving old email by searching for a part of it. About eliminating the need for folders, dates, keywords to remember your mail. About a all-in-one-bucket, always-available mail store, that's accessed by searching rather than sorting and browsing.
Forget about the one-gigabyte limit. That's just tweaking parameters that others already have. It's nothing really innovative.
What's really new is their entire approach.
Yeah, I haven't tried it beyond the first VS.Net as I moved to C# beyond that. I thought that was recent enough, though (hell, just last summer).
Anyway, nice to see they fixed it. There was even a KB article out for this problem about VS.Net, so I was fairly certain it wouldn't be fixed...
Example: You create a storage class (my example was a self-redistributing binary tree). The template class Storage<T> has a subclass Storage<T>::Element that holds three Element pointers (parent, left child, right child) and one const <T> pointer.
Of course, the Element class has a constructor, a destructor, a copy constructor, and an assignment operator defined. (Copy constructor and assignment op may not be formally required, but my experience says it's a very good idea to define them in anything that holds pointers).
As in:This code will produce an error. VC++ does not handle functions in named classes inside templates that are not declared inline.
(I may have missed some syntactic detail - It's been a long time since I wrote C++; I write C# these days. But the above annoyed me to no end. It works fine with gcc, which on the other hand can't handle when the functions are implemented inline, which should also work)
Side note: I absolutely love Microsoft's dev tools. This particular example is the exception to me, not the rule.
So what am I going to do with my Bluetooth desktop?
Put it there in the corner, next to the Cordless Desktop, the Logitech one that used proprietary radio. Yeah, right there, next to the infrared keyboard.
If you're using privacy to hide the truth, then there's something wrong with what you are doing, and you know that.
Uhm, yeah.
I used my privacy to hide from the government that I was actively trying to overthrow it, because I saw it as corrupt, misantropic, a threat to society and our way of life, and to humanity as a whole.
This was the truth, and I used my privacy to hide it.
This was in Germany, 1938, before the bloodshed began.
Or in Iraq, recently.
Or in Rwanda, a couple of years ago.
Or in Bosnia, a few more years ago.
Or in...
It is not freedom if you are only allowed to agree with the government. The right to be and do wrong is what defines freedom.
The notion that "if you are not doing something wrong, you have nothing to hide" have been applied to all fascist and police states. Don't let the attitude creep into mainstream American thinking. That is dangerous.
Just how much hacking is needed to take the red light out of a consumer camcorder?
On mine (a JVC DV), it can be done from a "System Settings" menu on the camera itself... but OTOH, I imagine most people who own the camera has never seen that menu ("what do you mean, you can set the time?").
They might have some information there about how well the stuff will conduct heat, but I got a lousy grade in Chemistry, so I'll leave it to the experts. ;)
:-)
A liquid conducts heat EXTREMELY well. You're thinking in terms of a solid, where atoms are fixed and have to transfer energy to each other. However, in a liquid, if one portion of the liquid is heated, this creates a stream of molecules in the liquid to disperse the heat. The heated molecules will actively move away from the heat source, giving room to cooler liquid molecules, which is a hell of a lot more efficient than normal solid-state heat conductivity.
Additionally, it has an heat capacitivity of about 1.1 kJ/kg/degree C, which compares to 4.2 for water. This means that 1.1 kJ (1.1 kW for one second) will heat one kilogram of the stuff one degree Celsius.
One can use this number for some interesting math. A normal box draws maybe 250W, all of which becomes heat. The density of the stuff is 160% of water's. I guesstimate that my tower will hold about twelve liters of water, or about 20 kg of this stuff.
(Note the scientifically correct notation "this stuff".)
Anyway, 20 kg exposed to 250W means that this stuff will heat by 0.75 degrees C every minute if the heat is not dissipated. Assuming a room temperature of 25 deg C, and an electronics-critical point of 45 deg C (the upper bound of operating temperature for some things I've seen; hell, some even have 40 tops), we have a span of 20 degrees, or about 30 minutes of operation until components are out of spec in their operating environment.
Again, this assumes that no heat is dissipated. A miditower probably has about 0.5 to 0.75 square meters of dissipating surface, with good heat transfer from this stuff inside.
Anybody knows if hard drives are built to operate immersed in liquid?
Ugh. White man comes to America, takes away all precious, precious land from Indians.
Now, Indians take away precious, precious income from white man in return.
What goes around comes around, as white man says.
Can we really trust closed-source venders, such as Cisco, to develop secure products that are free of backdoors?
You can't trust open-source for this, either. Not unless you personally constructed every piece of the device, from the source code, to everything that interacts with the source code, including the compiler, the EEPROM burners, and the chipsets on the device itself.
How do you know that the open source you are looking at actually is the one running in your device? You don't.
How do you know that the code you are looking at, assuming that it is running in the device, wasn't modified by a malicious compiler? You don't.
How do you know that the compiled code, assuming it is compiled correctly, wasn't altered in the transfer to the device? You don't.
How do you know the other onboard chips aren't built with a backdoor, patching, hooking or circumventing whatever code is put in the device? You don't.
What it boils down to is that trust is a very difficult animal, and at some point, you need to draw the line. Looking at the source is a meager guarantee for the device behaving well, in the case of a malicious vendor.
The bottom line is that there are so many covert channels to insert code into your overall system today, as long as they are carried on the normal device acquisision channels, that you can't defend against an attack by a malicious vendor. What you can do is to count on their risk analysis, and expecting them to want to stay in business just as much as you do. It's not much, but it's pretty much the best we got.
This is extremely similar to a recent Outlook vulnerability that was patched don't-know-when.
.exe. Boom.
So, what this Mac trojan does is to present itself with dual types, knowing that one (the file extension) will be presented to the user, and the other (type/creator metadata) to the operating system. The user sees a harmless file, and the operating system sees executable code.
The recent Outlook vulnerability did the same when rendering HTML mail; it used the MIME type to determine if to render, and the file extension to determine how to render. Thus, you would attach an executable (.exe) with MIME type image/jpeg, and reference it in a HTML mail. Outlook would try to render the image/jpeg, and called the shell for rendering the
So, this is nothing new, but I think we'll see more of this as complexity arises. It's not hard to make a complex system; it's hard to make a SIMPLE system.
If you look at handheld power tools, you'll find that almost none of them use NiMH or LiIon batteries we're used to in electronics. They still use NiCd.
Despite the environmental issue.
Despite the fact that the batteries suck and die, even! Nickel-Cadmium are a pain to recharge to not have them wander off into la-la-land.
And you know what? Because NiCd batteries still are the best we got when it comes to low internal resistance, meaning quick discharge. Power tools tend to NEED quick discharge. You don't care if you need to change batteries every 30 minutes as long as you have the tool in hand without power wiring.
Electronics, on the other hand, need long battery life, and so live in another world.
The possibility of quick discharge is a feature, not a bug.
That's the most disgusting link I've ever seen. It beats Goatse by miles and leagues.
NO amount of curiosity will suffice to pay for the images thrown in your face. Seriously.
"gvbrdgvnis" is a real georgian phrase.
:-)
And "hvgrggrpch" is a real Swedish title, although you'll only hear it in the military.
(short for hemvarnsgranatgevarsgruppchef, or in English, militia grenade launcher squad leader)
The problem with Firefox is that it is nearly impossible to pronounce. At least for me who has Swedish as a first language.
You have GOT to be kidding me? I see nothing inherently hard about the Firefox name at all.
Or are you trolling?
/ also a Swedish guy
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
Not in the least. The US vehemently opposed the International Crime Court, and when it became clear that the court was becoming reality, the US fought to have citizens of the United States immune to prosecution there.
So one need not wonder at all, a quick peek behind the shoulder reveals how the US government reacts to matters such as these when applied to them.