I also think Eric is mistaken about high-end flat panels, at least as far as finding a two-page screen with excellent dot pitch/image quality. He's still right that there really isn't anything in the 2x1k resolution range that's remotely practical, but 1600x1024 has been available for some time now. Samsung has the 24" 240T and Sun announced a 24" at Siggraph that should be available RSN.
Some of the more valid reasons for not going with lcd that Eric didn't mention: some lcd's have issues displaying fast moving images (e.g. first-person shooter 3d games, dvds) and accurate/consistent color reproduction at all angles (even the Apple Cinema Display has some quibbles in that arena). A lot of the GeForce cards that sport DVI-out also don't really support 1600x1024/1200 via DVI (the Hercules GeForce2 Ultra and GeForce3 being notable exceptions). Not sure about the new Radeons. And getting above 1600x1200 via DVI isn't possible right now AFAIK. I think that's at least one reason why the super hi-res $15k IBM flat-panel needs that custom vid card.
Check out the coffeehaus wiki for more on getting wide screen lcd support on pc's.
I was getting a little annoyed over the rumblings of a scsi-ide war, sketchy reasoning behind the fault tolerance of two disks but no raid, and lack of specifics on displays, but i thought the following was really well said:
the thermal load vs. cooling-noise tradeoff is the effective limiting factor in the performance of personal machines
and it actually explained the decision not to use raid.
I'm not sure I agree with the eventual decision to go with PC Power & Cooling--they are occasionally ridiculously overpriced and some of their "quiet" is really just achieved by underpowering the fans--some of the Antec PSs will perform just as well. Also, anyone know if PCPC's power supplies are like their cases (i.e. just CalPC cases relabeled and marked up)?
Also, I've heard arguments that a large case is not necessarily a boon for good case cooling w/ low noise: large cases require more fans to move the air effectively within--it's not the fact that there's lots of space in a case that makes for cooling, it's moving the air over and away from the components. Seems like having a mid-tower (given the low-moderate drive bay requirements) with a low-rpm 120mm intake and outake fans might have been better.
Re:Sweet! Mail is MUCH faster
on
Mozilla 0.9.5
·
· Score: 2
At work, I switched from Eudora to Mozilla Mail (for Windows) recently. I've got three complaints w/ Mozilla Mail:
1) When the Mozilla browser crashes, my mail dies with it
2) When I have several Moz windows open, I can't distinguish mail from other browser windows in my taskbar (a different icon would be nice).
3) I can't set up multiple Eudora-style "personalities"--if you've got aliases configured on your mail server (say for a multitude of mailing lists, etc.) pointing to one account and you want to be able to respond as one of of the aliases (essentially to be able to change the "From" header) you can't in an easy way in Mozilla.
although it doesn't have the self-destruct switch =) but the point of having strong encryption is that even if the dongle was stolen, it wouldn't be worth the computational effort to extract the info, right?
along with thad, steve is one of the best known wearables pioneers. one of my favorite examples to show to people new to wearables is steve's condomwoman sequence:
I thought the same thing. Here's a (Score: 5) post from the original Slashdot article:
A backlight won't help in the GBA's case. The LCD screen has reflective faceting to improve the visual quality (not to be confused with the reflective plastic cover that actually makes frontlighting the unit unbearable due to glare).
Any light shone through the back will only succeed in "washing out" the colour due to the properties of the LCD. Personally I would have preferred an organic electroluminescent display (OLED) to this darkened LCD nightmare. OLEDs produce their own light and are more energy efficient than LCDs, let alone LCDs with backlighting.
I'm glad Adam didn't give up on the basis of our informed community input;) Cheers to the happy hacking spirit.
Bullshit. Anything over 192/stereo is a complete waste of time. If you knew anything about audio compression, you'd understand that above that, you should be using MP2.
so how does (or doesn't) this affect jboss. when i first read the original/. article, the first thing i thought was "what a crock" given the jboss model.
To paraphrase the original article:
The question isn't, "Is privacy good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy?"
The problem I found when I started to think about presenting an intelligent argument to friends, let alone to elected representatives, was that in order to make a strong argument in favor of protecting our privacy, especially wrt strong encryption, was that I couldn't simply take as given, "privacy is good" when the opposing arguments may in fact agree with that position, yet simply add the ostensibly reasonable condition that we need to balance the need for a "reasonable" assurance of privacy against the need for ______ (e.g. public safety, etc.).
The case for (and gaining public support for) protecting our privacy would be much simpler if the other side of the argument was pushing for an all-out Orwellian state with Thought Police and the like. That's not the case. The arguments in favor of limiting strong encryption and expanding government monitoring of communications are made in the context of protecting innocent people, by limiting the ability of criminal activity to escape detection. A sympathetic listener might foreseeably see the reasonableness of the argument.
I believe we need to have realistic examples that people can relate to to understand why we need to protect our privacy. For example, I don't find Ellis' analogy of encrypted email to enclosing letters in an envelope compelling. If we're settling for PEEP (Paper Envelope Equivalent Privacy);) we're going to have a difficult time making a persuasive argument for protecting a level of encryption that requires the entire computing resources of the planet over the expected lifetime of the universe to circumvent. The other examples, such as patient record privacy or business secrets seem less compelling if the argument is that only certain government agencies would have access to the mandatory keys (and perhaps further protection along the lines of such intercepted/decrypted information could only be used if authorized by a warrant, etc.). Before I started writing this post, I took a (very) quick survey around some of the privacy rights web sites--I didn't feel like I found compelling arguments or examples as why "privacy is good". There's much more along the lines of current proposed legislation, surveys about how people feel about privacy, guidelines for e-commerce related privacy policies, etc. As I was trying to say earlier, taking "privacy as good" to be self-evident isn't as helpful in an argument that pits it against other equally "self-evident" principles (e.g. "protecting the lives of innocent people is good", "exposing criminal behavior that endangers others is good", etc.). The most "compelling" arguments I found on the various privacy related web sites were historical quotes, e.g.:
"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."
- Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S. (1928)
"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin
Great for 10-second spots, a little lacking otherwise.
The other tack may be to demonstrate that the proposed curtailings of our civil liberties doesn't in fact curtail the resources available to (mildly) sophisticated criminals. (Incidentally, I think such arguments need to address the objection that while limiting the general public's legal access to strong encryption may not hinder a criminal's access to such encryption, it would raise a red flag when strong encryption is detected in passing traffic).
I understand that one point of the original editorial could be taken as a call to simply be loud and try to match the other, not terribly well-reasoned side of the debate--basically, just get your viewpoint heard. But we ought to be able to back it up with rational argument if the need arises. So, maybe we could get a list/discussion here going about sound arguments for why privacy is good, even against other, "self-evident goods".
> Actually, I don't think he did much for AI, except for the turing test, which is more of philosophical theory.
I just attended a lecture this afternoon by John Searle, where he devoted some time to talking about Turing. I got the impression that by developing the Turing Machine, Test, etc., Turing created the foundation for present-day functionalism in cog-sci. From what I understand, it sounds like the wet-dream cog-sci project is to simulate the "software" our brain runs on conventional hardware. And this AI project only makes sense insofar as the theory that humans themselves are essentially a sort of universal turing machine holds.
I really wish reviewers would at least include a blurb about 2d performance. I imagine most people spend most of their computer time dealing with text and 2d images. When I'm gaming I certainly want high framerates and all, but not at the expense of crisp text and graphics at 1600x1200. I didn't see a blip about 2d quality in the Anandtech review.
The first nvidia cards (tnt/tnt2) I used had sucky 2d compared to the matrox cards I had been using. It seems like Matrox card reviews always mention something about 2d, if only because their 3d isn't anything to write home about.
Firstly, kudos to Dave Winer for getting this discussion going. There's got to be a better alternative to decentralized membership than MS Passport, and why not Dave to open up the new Frontier;)
I don't understand why Dave poses the issue of privacy vs. publishing as mutually exclusive. Neither camp's advocates would be happy with an all-or-nothing solution. And even in selecting the "publishing" route, of course he's not throwing privacy concerns to the winds (I hope). If it's a matter of trying to set realistic user expectations, that's one thing, but I don't think choosing publishing over privacy makes the design/implementation problem significantly easier.
That said, I think his description of a decentralized membership has some good things going for it. I just think it needs to address security issues/features at least in a way that security conscious users or sites/services can take advantage/require or otherwise use them. At least something like the xmlStorageSystem he describes *does* ensure that a public resource like member.xml is password protected. But of course, it doesn't attempt to address connection-level security (e.g. requiring SSL). Seems like you'd want to at least be able to require some minimum connection-level security.... Or otherwise fashion a system for the legacy server to encrypt the data using a public key from the requesting server.
Also, I guess I'm not quite sure from a first reading if there's just supposed to be *one* legacy site, or multiple (if the former, then aren't you running very close the the Passport single-source concerns? if the latter, is there some kind of subscription/maintenance so data stays up-to-date?). And in any of these situations, without being to require some kind of security, would you ever trust your billing/credit card info to it? If not, that seems to be a big strike against the whole goal of increased user convenience for decentralized membership (at least for the joe-consumer audience).
[Nitric oxide's] part in assisting men achieve erection has been exploited by the modern impotence drugs like Viagra.
So, slip some viagra into the punchbowl of the next female firefly gathering, and we have a new source of long-lasting, organic, romantic lighting fixtures;)
Re:All the wonderful things Quake gave us
on
Five Years of Quake
·
· Score: 2
IANACS (I am not a constitutional scholar:P), but 1st Amendment rights to free speech/press etc. is one thing, "freedom" to try to get you to part with your cash to purchase my product or service is another.
SPAM legislation shouldn't (and doesn't so far as I know) attempt to regulate unsolicited political, religious, philosophical, or just plain stupid content. I think there would be some genuine 1st amendment issues in the U.S. if it did.
A question:
- would it be the 1st amendment rights of the companies that would prevent us from legislating away their ability to send us junk mail in meatspace?
I think Taco's half-serious(?) suggestion to impose "postage" on UCE points to one of the root problems of UCE: damn little cost for the sender. Even if we could incorporate some of the opt-out facilities available to us with meatspace junkmail, i.e., contact the DMA (direct marketing assoc?) and basically opt-out of receiving junk mail from all/most(?) of their member companies, that doesn't address the thousands/millions of individual, fly-by-night companies, MLM schemers, etc. who can't afford the 3rd class postage to bludgeon the universe with paper junk mail but can sure afford to click the send button on their email client.
Legislators are wrong to think that opt-out insofar as it may work for paper junk mail and phone calls applies in the same way to UCE.
But it doesn't seem that the restrictions of the EULA *only* cover redistribution of the toolkit w/ GPL'ed source:
...and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part.
The passage above also seems to cover using GPL'ed software to develop your own software ("recipient software") that includes Microsoft's toolkit. But it's not exactly clear to me how this works.... Microsoft's product is not itself distributed as source, so what exactly would recipient software you create that includes Microsoft's toolkit (in whole or in part) look like? Seems like a pretty special case scenario. Seems like the restriction, if it was only concerned with redistribution wouldn't need the clause restricting the use GPL'ed software to *develop* GPL'ed software that includes the toolkit in the distribution--you just need to disallow including the toolkit period. The whole restriction on using GPL'ed software is bizarre.
Is this intended just to be confusing to scare middle managers into forbidding their developers from using GPL'ed software? Penning GPL'ed and a handful of other open source licenses as "viral" certainly suggests that that is part of the motivation.
some implementation of LDAP, or its big brother, X.500? maybe in conjunction w/ using certs?
but what does merely having an available open source implementation get you? who's going to run it? someone who you are going trust? just because it's open source certainly doesn't mean someone is going to run it for free in competition against microsoft.
and if not microsoft, what, is petreley implying that sun would have been a better candidate for holding a monopoly position on auth services? pah!
maybe some single, monolith authentication service isn't the direction to be looking to in the first place. seems like trust issues keep cropping up....
and for the karma-pimps, here's some karma-whoring--ostensibly because starwars.com is already/.'ed:
On October 16, Lucasfilm Ltd. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment will begin the worldwide release of Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace on DVD. The highly anticipated arrival of Episode I marks the first film of the Star Wars saga to debut on DVD.
Enthusiastic fans of the film will be rewarded for their patience. Clocking in at about 480 minutes in length, it features over six hours of additional bonus material, including brand new visual effects sequences executed just for the DVD release.
Here's what the two-disc set will feature:
The Phantom Menace, mastered by THX for superior sound and picture quality, presented in Anamorphic Widescreen and Dolby 5.1 Surround EX (English), Dolby 2.0 Surround (English and Spanish), and Dolby 2.0 Surround (French, for Canadian release)
Audio commentary by Writer-Director George Lucas; Producer Rick McCallum; Co-Editor and Sound Designer Ben Burtt; Visual Effects Supervisors Scott Squires, John Knoll and Dennis Muren; and Animation Supervisor Rob Coleman, offering personal insights into the making of the film
Seven never-before-seen deleted scenes with full visual effects completed just for the DVD release
"The Beginning" -- an all-new hour-long documentary culled from over 600 hours of footage offering unprecedented access inside Lucasfilm and ILM during the making of Episode I
Multi-angle storyboard to animatic to finished film feature, that lets you flip through the various phases of development of key action sequences
Five behind-the-scenes featurettes exploring The Phantom Menace's storyline, designs, costumes, visual effects and fight scenes
The popular "Duel of the Fates" music video that debuted in 1999
All 12 parts of the Lynne's Diaries, the web documentaries that first appeared here at starwars.com
Galleries of theatrical posters, print campaign, and never-before-scene production photos
Downloaded by millions from starwars.com, the original theatrical teaser and launch trailers, plus seven TV spots including the "tone poems"
The two-disc set is priced at $ 29.98 in the U.S. and $ 41.98 in Canada.
Keep checking starwars.com for more updates on this exciting upcoming release.
still, it's cause for concern, especially on a system with a large number of users, or any system where you don't trust the users. among the arguments i heard on the openbsd mailing lists was that this exploit wasn't especially cause for concern because 1) the exploit requires things that use rfork() and nothing in the default install does, and 2) local users can already DoS and other f*** up the local system if they're determined enough, so this isn't an especially high priority exploit....
these are both weak arguments, IMHO, (and the first is just mistaken) but these also weren't the opinions of any of the core developers AFAIK, just some of the other folks on the list. what i found more interesting was to hear the sentiment that the bug would get fixed insofar as it gave one of the developers an itch--which sounds perfectly normal and exactly right for any free, open source project, but it sure *sounds* alarming to hear that a root exploit will get fixed when someone feels like getting to it--even if it is the case that the patch will (and did) get released faster than most patches to any commercial products.
all in all, i'm still pleased as punch about openbsd and i think it's as much a testament to openbsd's success that a local root exploit raises so much concern *just because* of the high expectations we have come to have for it.
for some time now, the mozilla roadmap has indicated that "if we work hard and fortune smiles on us" mozilla would have gone from 0.9 to a 1.0, skipping the 0.9.1 milestone. oh well. i guess that was the gist of an earlier story. but really, is this that bad a thing?
and since i haven't seen it mentioned yet, don't forget to evaluate 0.9.1's improved "threaded pr0n";)
The other common standards for digital connection (like DVI) don't have enough bandwidth for 1600x1024. This is why SGI and Number Nine went with OpenLDI (the native interface on the 1600SW). But no one else natively supports OpenLDI.
I thought it was just that some vid card mfr's artificially limited bandwidth on the DVI-outs on some of their cards. If it was a problem w/ the DVI spec, well, how did anyone ever get 1600x1024 on the original DVI cinema display or the newer ADC version?
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK, there are 2 adapters to let you go from a DVI to ADC connector:
I also think Eric is mistaken about high-end flat panels, at least as far as finding a two-page screen with excellent dot pitch/image quality. He's still right that there really isn't anything in the 2x1k resolution range that's remotely practical, but 1600x1024 has been available for some time now. Samsung has the 24" 240T and Sun announced a 24" at Siggraph that should be available RSN.
Some of the more valid reasons for not going with lcd that Eric didn't mention: some lcd's have issues displaying fast moving images (e.g. first-person shooter 3d games, dvds) and accurate/consistent color reproduction at all angles (even the Apple Cinema Display has some quibbles in that arena). A lot of the GeForce cards that sport DVI-out also don't really support 1600x1024/1200 via DVI (the Hercules GeForce2 Ultra and GeForce3 being notable exceptions). Not sure about the new Radeons. And getting above 1600x1200 via DVI isn't possible right now AFAIK. I think that's at least one reason why the super hi-res $15k IBM flat-panel needs that custom vid card.
Check out the coffeehaus wiki for more on getting wide screen lcd support on pc's.
I'm not sure I agree with the eventual decision to go with PC Power & Cooling--they are occasionally ridiculously overpriced and some of their "quiet" is really just achieved by underpowering the fans--some of the Antec PSs will perform just as well. Also, anyone know if PCPC's power supplies are like their cases (i.e. just CalPC cases relabeled and marked up)?
Also, I've heard arguments that a large case is not necessarily a boon for good case cooling w/ low noise: large cases require more fans to move the air effectively within--it's not the fact that there's lots of space in a case that makes for cooling, it's moving the air over and away from the components. Seems like having a mid-tower (given the low-moderate drive bay requirements) with a low-rpm 120mm intake and outake fans might have been better.
At work, I switched from Eudora to Mozilla Mail (for Windows) recently. I've got three complaints w/ Mozilla Mail:
1) When the Mozilla browser crashes, my mail dies with it
2) When I have several Moz windows open, I can't distinguish mail from other browser windows in my taskbar (a different icon would be nice).
3) I can't set up multiple Eudora-style "personalities"--if you've got aliases configured on your mail server (say for a multitude of mailing lists, etc.) pointing to one account and you want to be able to respond as one of of the aliases (essentially to be able to change the "From" header) you can't in an easy way in Mozilla.
Are these issues for anyone else?
something like this?
http://www.ealaddin.com/etoken/pro/
although it doesn't have the self-destruct switch =) but the point of having strong encryption is that even if the dongle was stolen, it wouldn't be worth the computational effort to extract the info, right?
along with thad, steve is one of the best known wearables pioneers. one of my favorite examples to show to people new to wearables is steve's condomwoman sequence:
in particular, the before & after photos =)
I'm glad Adam didn't give up on the basis of our informed community input
Can you post some links that discuss this?
so how does (or doesn't) this affect jboss. when i first read the original /. article, the first thing i thought was "what a crock" given the jboss model.
To paraphrase the original article:
;) we're going to have a difficult time making a persuasive argument for protecting a level of encryption that requires the entire computing resources of the planet over the expected lifetime of the universe to circumvent. The other examples, such as patient record privacy or business secrets seem less compelling if the argument is that only certain government agencies would have access to the mandatory keys (and perhaps further protection along the lines of such intercepted/decrypted information could only be used if authorized by a warrant, etc.). Before I started writing this post, I took a (very) quick survey around some of the privacy rights web sites--I didn't feel like I found compelling arguments or examples as why "privacy is good". There's much more along the lines of current proposed legislation, surveys about how people feel about privacy, guidelines for e-commerce related privacy policies, etc. As I was trying to say earlier, taking "privacy as good" to be self-evident isn't as helpful in an argument that pits it against other equally "self-evident" principles (e.g. "protecting the lives of innocent people is good", "exposing criminal behavior that endangers others is good", etc.). The most "compelling" arguments I found on the various privacy related web sites were historical quotes, e.g.:
The question isn't, "Is privacy good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy?"
The problem I found when I started to think about presenting an intelligent argument to friends, let alone to elected representatives, was that in order to make a strong argument in favor of protecting our privacy, especially wrt strong encryption, was that I couldn't simply take as given, "privacy is good" when the opposing arguments may in fact agree with that position, yet simply add the ostensibly reasonable condition that we need to balance the need for a "reasonable" assurance of privacy against the need for ______ (e.g. public safety, etc.).
The case for (and gaining public support for) protecting our privacy would be much simpler if the other side of the argument was pushing for an all-out Orwellian state with Thought Police and the like. That's not the case. The arguments in favor of limiting strong encryption and expanding government monitoring of communications are made in the context of protecting innocent people, by limiting the ability of criminal activity to escape detection. A sympathetic listener might foreseeably see the reasonableness of the argument.
I believe we need to have realistic examples that people can relate to to understand why we need to protect our privacy. For example, I don't find Ellis' analogy of encrypted email to enclosing letters in an envelope compelling. If we're settling for PEEP (Paper Envelope Equivalent Privacy)
"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."
- Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S. (1928)
"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin
Great for 10-second spots, a little lacking otherwise.
The other tack may be to demonstrate that the proposed curtailings of our civil liberties doesn't in fact curtail the resources available to (mildly) sophisticated criminals. (Incidentally, I think such arguments need to address the objection that while limiting the general public's legal access to strong encryption may not hinder a criminal's access to such encryption, it would raise a red flag when strong encryption is detected in passing traffic).
I understand that one point of the original editorial could be taken as a call to simply be loud and try to match the other, not terribly well-reasoned side of the debate--basically, just get your viewpoint heard. But we ought to be able to back it up with rational argument if the need arises. So, maybe we could get a list/discussion here going about sound arguments for why privacy is good, even against other, "self-evident goods".
thanks for posting your numbers.
my only question is what jvm (and version) was used?
Do you know the reasoning for some of the newer CD-RW (e.g. Plextor's 24x) to switch to ATA/33?
I think I saw one other (Ricoh?) also do the same.
I just attended a lecture this afternoon by John Searle, where he devoted some time to talking about Turing. I got the impression that by developing the Turing Machine, Test, etc., Turing created the foundation for present-day functionalism in cog-sci. From what I understand, it sounds like the wet-dream cog-sci project is to simulate the "software" our brain runs on conventional hardware. And this AI project only makes sense insofar as the theory that humans themselves are essentially a sort of universal turing machine holds.
But I could be totally misunderstanding Searle =)
I really wish reviewers would at least include a blurb about 2d performance. I imagine most people spend most of their computer time dealing with text and 2d images. When I'm gaming I certainly want high framerates and all, but not at the expense of crisp text and graphics at 1600x1200. I didn't see a blip about 2d quality in the Anandtech review.
The first nvidia cards (tnt/tnt2) I used had sucky 2d compared to the matrox cards I had been using. It seems like Matrox card reviews always mention something about 2d, if only because their 3d isn't anything to write home about.
omg that's hilarious. i'd never noticed those choices. here's another:
Elmer Fudd
Firstly, kudos to Dave Winer for getting this discussion going. There's got to be a better alternative to decentralized membership than MS Passport, and why not Dave to open up the new Frontier ;)
I don't understand why Dave poses the issue of privacy vs. publishing as mutually exclusive. Neither camp's advocates would be happy with an all-or-nothing solution. And even in selecting the "publishing" route, of course he's not throwing privacy concerns to the winds (I hope). If it's a matter of trying to set realistic user expectations, that's one thing, but I don't think choosing publishing over privacy makes the design/implementation problem significantly easier.
That said, I think his description of a decentralized membership has some good things going for it. I just think it needs to address security issues/features at least in a way that security conscious users or sites/services can take advantage/require or otherwise use them. At least something like the xmlStorageSystem he describes *does* ensure that a public resource like member.xml is password protected. But of course, it doesn't attempt to address connection-level security (e.g. requiring SSL). Seems like you'd want to at least be able to require some minimum connection-level security.... Or otherwise fashion a system for the legacy server to encrypt the data using a public key from the requesting server.
Also, I guess I'm not quite sure from a first reading if there's just supposed to be *one* legacy site, or multiple (if the former, then aren't you running very close the the Passport single-source concerns? if the latter, is there some kind of subscription/maintenance so data stays up-to-date?). And in any of these situations, without being to require some kind of security, would you ever trust your billing/credit card info to it? If not, that seems to be a big strike against the whole goal of increased user convenience for decentralized membership (at least for the joe-consumer audience).
...country music singer Charley Pride's "A Tribute to Jim Reeves" cd.
According to this, someone's already posted mp3's of the tracks, but the label denies that the copy protection was truly circumvented.
And, incidentally, this looks like old news--the press releases I saw were dated in May.
[Nitric oxide's] part in assisting men achieve erection has been exploited by the modern impotence drugs like Viagra.
;)
So, slip some viagra into the punchbowl of the next female firefly gathering, and we have a new source of long-lasting, organic, romantic lighting fixtures
but quake gave us killcreek nekkid ;)
IANACS (I am not a constitutional scholar :P), but 1st Amendment rights to free speech/press etc. is one thing, "freedom" to try to get you to part with your cash to purchase my product or service is another.
SPAM legislation shouldn't (and doesn't so far as I know) attempt to regulate unsolicited political, religious, philosophical, or just plain stupid content. I think there would be some genuine 1st amendment issues in the U.S. if it did.
A question:
- would it be the 1st amendment rights of the companies that would prevent us from legislating away their ability to send us junk mail in meatspace?
I think Taco's half-serious(?) suggestion to impose "postage" on UCE points to one of the root problems of UCE: damn little cost for the sender. Even if we could incorporate some of the opt-out facilities available to us with meatspace junkmail, i.e., contact the DMA (direct marketing assoc?) and basically opt-out of receiving junk mail from all/most(?) of their member companies, that doesn't address the thousands/millions of individual, fly-by-night companies, MLM schemers, etc. who can't afford the 3rd class postage to bludgeon the universe with paper junk mail but can sure afford to click the send button on their email client.
Legislators are wrong to think that opt-out insofar as it may work for paper junk mail and phone calls applies in the same way to UCE.
The passage above also seems to cover using GPL'ed software to develop your own software ("recipient software") that includes Microsoft's toolkit. But it's not exactly clear to me how this works.... Microsoft's product is not itself distributed as source, so what exactly would recipient software you create that includes Microsoft's toolkit (in whole or in part) look like? Seems like a pretty special case scenario. Seems like the restriction, if it was only concerned with redistribution wouldn't need the clause restricting the use GPL'ed software to *develop* GPL'ed software that includes the toolkit in the distribution--you just need to disallow including the toolkit period. The whole restriction on using GPL'ed software is bizarre.
Is this intended just to be confusing to scare middle managers into forbidding their developers from using GPL'ed software? Penning GPL'ed and a handful of other open source licenses as "viral" certainly suggests that that is part of the motivation.
some implementation of LDAP, or its big brother, X.500? maybe in conjunction w/ using certs?
but what does merely having an available open source implementation get you? who's going to run it? someone who you are going trust? just because it's open source certainly doesn't mean someone is going to run it for free in competition against microsoft.
and if not microsoft, what, is petreley implying that sun would have been a better candidate for holding a monopoly position on auth services? pah!
maybe some single, monolith authentication service isn't the direction to be looking to in the first place. seems like trust issues keep cropping up....
fyi, it's only $29.98 (USD).
/.'ed:
and for the karma-pimps, here's some karma-whoring--ostensibly because starwars.com is already
On October 16, Lucasfilm Ltd. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment will begin the worldwide release of Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace on DVD. The highly anticipated arrival of Episode I marks the first film of the Star Wars saga to debut on DVD.
Enthusiastic fans of the film will be rewarded for their patience. Clocking in at about 480 minutes in length, it features over six hours of additional bonus material, including brand new visual effects sequences executed just for the DVD release.
Here's what the two-disc set will feature:
The Phantom Menace, mastered by THX for superior sound and picture quality, presented in Anamorphic Widescreen and Dolby 5.1 Surround EX (English), Dolby 2.0 Surround (English and Spanish), and Dolby 2.0 Surround (French, for Canadian release)
Audio commentary by Writer-Director George Lucas; Producer Rick McCallum; Co-Editor and Sound Designer Ben Burtt; Visual Effects Supervisors Scott Squires, John Knoll and Dennis Muren; and Animation Supervisor Rob Coleman, offering personal insights into the making of the film
Seven never-before-seen deleted scenes with full visual effects completed just for the DVD release
"The Beginning" -- an all-new hour-long documentary culled from over 600 hours of footage offering unprecedented access inside Lucasfilm and ILM during the making of Episode I
Multi-angle storyboard to animatic to finished film feature, that lets you flip through the various phases of development of key action sequences
Five behind-the-scenes featurettes exploring The Phantom Menace's storyline, designs, costumes, visual effects and fight scenes
The popular "Duel of the Fates" music video that debuted in 1999
All 12 parts of the Lynne's Diaries, the web documentaries that first appeared here at starwars.com
Galleries of theatrical posters, print campaign, and never-before-scene production photos
Downloaded by millions from starwars.com, the original theatrical teaser and launch trailers, plus seven TV spots including the "tone poems"
The two-disc set is priced at $ 29.98 in the U.S. and $ 41.98 in Canada.
Keep checking starwars.com for more updates on this exciting upcoming release.
so, #1, it's a local, not remote root exploit.
still, it's cause for concern, especially on a system with a large number of users, or any system where you don't trust the users. among the arguments i heard on the openbsd mailing lists was that this exploit wasn't especially cause for concern because 1) the exploit requires things that use rfork() and nothing in the default install does, and 2) local users can already DoS and other f*** up the local system if they're determined enough, so this isn't an especially high priority exploit....
these are both weak arguments, IMHO, (and the first is just mistaken) but these also weren't the opinions of any of the core developers AFAIK, just some of the other folks on the list. what i found more interesting was to hear the sentiment that the bug would get fixed insofar as it gave one of the developers an itch--which sounds perfectly normal and exactly right for any free, open source project, but it sure *sounds* alarming to hear that a root exploit will get fixed when someone feels like getting to it--even if it is the case that the patch will (and did) get released faster than most patches to any commercial products.
all in all, i'm still pleased as punch about openbsd and i think it's as much a testament to openbsd's success that a local root exploit raises so much concern *just because* of the high expectations we have come to have for it.
and since i haven't seen it mentioned yet, don't forget to evaluate 0.9.1's improved "threaded pr0n" ;)
I thought it was just that some vid card mfr's artificially limited bandwidth on the DVI-outs on some of their cards. If it was a problem w/ the DVI spec, well, how did anyone ever get 1600x1024 on the original DVI cinema display or the newer ADC version?