Encryption on your computer only provides for you, and
only if you are neither of the above.
That doesn't even make sense, unless you believe
I singlehandedly have the power to make Windows and OS-X
come preinstalled with decent easy-to-use encryption.
Re:Only works if it's default install
on
TrueCrypt 6.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, I'm quite positive that you do have a hidden volume. It's where you're storing all of your terrorist secrets, and unless you reveal the password then this ballpeen hammer has a date with your fingers.
Although you have something of a point, I think all those damned trees have blocked your view of the forest.
Very, very few of us use TC because we fear having our fingers broken to discover our secrets. We use it to keep client data safe from accidental loss; we use it to store personal info on shared machines at work; we use it to protect our financial records on home PCs from possible compromise. We may even use it to hide some questionably legal material, but generally nothing that will cause us to vanish one night and wake up in Jordan with a date with a rusty drillbit.
In theory, yes, I absolutely agree with you that easy-to-use encryption should come preinstalled everywhere. In practice, plausible deniability works well enough in the Western world that I simply don't care whether or not the NSA could theoretically detect whether or not I have a hidden TC volume.
But it won't do you much good, and in reality, you'll never have
time to read foreign journals (or looked at another way, it would be
a comparative waste of your time given the quantity of good material
you could be reading in English).
I'll second that, with an additional personal anecdote.
I took almost eight years of French, from elementary school through highschool. I took another language in College (which I won't name as few enough people take it that it would make me more easily identifiable... Hi Bob from HR!),
at which I became reasonably fluent. I also learned Esperanto on my own, under the delusion that it seemed like a useful skill.
And today, I can barely say "Bonjour". I can, with a dictionary, ploddingly make my way through simple (as in, newspaper-level grammar) written French.
The other two, I can barely remember a word of, written or spoken.
The problem with languages involves use. If you don't use them, you VERY
quickly lose them. Personally, I view every second of time I spent learning
languages (and not an inconsiderable amount of time at that... I'd measure
it in the thousands of hours over my life) as a complete and utter
waste. I would have better spent my time sleeping, or out drinking with
the boys, or doing just about anything else, than learning something I'd
forget within a few years.
Now... For some people, natural languages come easily. If you happen to have
that skill, and want to work for the State Department or some intelligence
agency, have at it. Otherwise... Don't waste your time. The world speaks
English.
Slashdot will think that you should be able to use anything you damn well please as long as it's Open Source.
If a viable FOSS solution exists, why pay more for less?
Yes, especially if the people who sign you paycheck tell you that's what you have to do.
If you write nothing but crappy apps targetting a single platform, that works (though I still consider
it suicidally stupid to deliberately cripple your best people for the purpose of pissing them off by
treating them as interchangeable cogs). If, however, you occasionally need to write firmware, good
luck using Ruby on Rails. Likewise, if you occasionally need a web app but usually focus on Win32,
welcome to a world of hell, brought to you by trying to squeeze Visual Studio into a niche
best filled by FOSS solutions.
When upper management leads the company in the business world, they can do at least some good.
When they start dictating policies relating to skills they can't even pretend to understand,
time to find a new job, because the current one will soon vanish (after a long and painful downhill
ride that they will, of course, blame on the people who actually need to live with their
"policies").
Maybe. A lot depends on how well the team is managed.
Maybe indeed... As I said, if you only ever do a single type of coding, you might
get away with a single standardized tool.
Realistically, however, you don't win a marathon by cutting off all non-right feet.
If the G8 summit were to agree on these measures and enforce
them through international cooperation, could they really cut
down piracy, or would they be impractical to enforce?
Not a matter of impractical... You have a stegosaurus trying
to step on all those pesky little rats that recently appeared
on the scene.
The stegosaurus can do whatever it wants, and the rats can't
stop it. The rats, however, will last far longer than the
dinosaurs.
Yes. All the "problems" you mention derive solely from your
preconceived notions about what "the web" means.
Directness of navigation, indexing, searching, and browser compatibility
have nothing to do with "complies with HTTP".
Now, in the last case (only certain clients or devices work), you can
say that something using port 80 for non-HTTP traffic doesn't count as
"the web"... But that seems like complaining that your PC doesn't
run your favorite games when you use it as a boat anchor.
Such questions bely a much bigger question for Web developers
Well, yes and no. Web developers may need to ask themselves whether
they want to write standards-compatible web pages, or arbitrary
network-enabled apps (which would, IMO, make them no longer "web
developers"). But beyond that... Nothing to see here, move along.
If you eat an orange, don't complain that it doesn't taste like an apple.
You can say that about any energy storage mechanism, from
capacitors to compressed air to iron-pine-cones-on-a-chain.
I think we can safely presume that the engineers involved in this
project took such issues under consideration and didn't choose to
use Playschool's My First Wind Turbine.;-)
I'm not suggesting that bleeding-edge science should be
economically feasible
This doesn't really count as "bleeding edge"... I don't know if
the world has ever seen any large-scale implementations of
the idea, but cavern-based compressed air storage of energy has
existed since (at least) the 1960s.
And conceptually, this doesn't differ drastically from pumping water
uphill, except that you need a cave instead of a reservoir.
I'm no software engineer [...] but what about the processes that are
slow and plodding and sequential? How do those get sped up if you're
opting for more cores instead of more cycles?
As a software engineer, I wonder the same thing.
Put simply, the majority of code simply doesn't parallelize
well. You can break out a few major portions of it to run as their
own threads, but for the most part, programs either sit around and
wait for the user, or sit around and wait for hardware resources.
Within that, only those programs that wait for a particular
hardware resource - CPU time - Even have the potential to
benefit from more cores... And while a lot of those might
split well into a few threads, most will not scale
(without a complete rewrite to chose entirely different algorithms
- If they even exist to accomplish the intended purpose) to more
than a handful of cores.
In order to upload you have to send the data in one
big POST request and there's no way, via HTTP, to poll
the results on the server.
In HTTP, perhaps not. In TCP, yes - Because you can't
send all that much in a single big packet, and you (can) know
how many packets you've sent out.
As proof-of-concept, Curl and wget seem to have no problem
showing a reasonably accurate progress bar.
Re:NAS: Western Digital MyBook World Edition II
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I've got the WD MyBook WE 2 TB drive a few weeks ago.
I'd second this as a great option for a standalone hardware solution
that costs only a hair more than the bare drives themselves.
The MBWE's have a thriving "enthusiast" community as well, so you
can pretty much mod it to do anything from the intended use to making
your toast in the morning. Just throw away the Windows-side software
it comes with, which reduces performance for the purpose of limiting
your rights. Yeah, suuuuuure...
One warning about them, though - They do not have a high
throughput... On a switched gigabit LAN, it manages about 4.5 to
6MB/s... Enough to stream music and a DVD or two, great for backups,
but you won't want to use this as your primary storage.
I've heard of a project to strip Samba down a bit to use less CPU
(the limiting resource on the MBWE), but I wouldn't buy this expecting
that anytime soon.
That said, I do love it and plan to get a second one within
the next month.
At this point it should be obvious what the SSL certificate
system provides you with, which is a clear chain of responsibility
for breaches in security.
You use the word "liability" in a curious manner here, suggesting that
you've spent too much time with PHBs (or worse, may count as one
yourself - No offense intended, may FSM have mercy on your soul)...
Although the corporate world may care who to point the finger at, the
rest of us just want to know that www.mybank.com really goes to my
bank, and that no one can snoop in on their conversation.
For the former, self-signed certs don't suffice. Although in theory
neither do CA-issued certs (you listed four vectors of attack, with
the end user themselves as the most likely to fail), they count as
the best means of identification commonly available.
For the latter, "identification" doesn't always matter. I don't really
care if my "News for Nerds" comes from Slashdot or someone disguised as
Slashdot; I do, however, prefer that my employer (which allows reading Slashdot) not have the ability to associate my Slashdot handle with my
real identity. Encryption alone will suffice for that, so a self-signed
cert would do just fine.
I understand why we would combine those two functions into one mechanism,
but people need to understand that self-signed still beats unencrypted
HTTP by quite a lot.
Less people watching TV. They might read more or actually
get outside more.
People watching TV don't cost me money in insurance
premiums (as long as they exercise enough otherwise).
That will reduce the number of trees used to print books
since most people would no longer be able to buy one.
People reading books don't cost me money in insurance
premiums.
So what happens when they tax something that you like to do?
In this thread, I've seen countless straw-men about "what if they come
after your vices". My vices don't cost anyone anything, so
have no relevance to the topic at hand. If, however, someone discovers
that something I enjoy has broad economic consequences, then I will
decide if I like it enough to keep doing it and pay the price, rather
than expecting you to subsidize my vices. Simple as
that - Plain ol' personal responsibility.
Let me put this simply - I don't care about you (in the abstract, I don't
mean this personally). I don't care if you eat until you need to wear a
tent, smoke crack until your heart explodes, or inhale powdered asbestos
because you like the way it tickles. I do care when you cost me
money (or worse, time), however, and this issue reduces to that one
fact.
What has gone wrong so that apparently intelligent, apparently
serious people can propose levying penalties on how much another
individual eats?
Because what other people in my group health plan eat/smoke raises
my insurance premiums. Simple as that.
If that doesn't negate personal freedom, I don't know what does.
Note that I specifically did not say "ban" such behaviors. I 100%
support anyone's choice to kill themselves via food, drink, smoking,
or even most currently illegal substances. But as part of that
choice, they, not I, should have to pay the incurred cost of
their medical care.
Do you do risky things sometimes?
Yes, I do. And if you gave me a "price list" of penalties for engaging
in them, I'd probably still choose to indulge most of my vices.
But at least I would pay for that, not everyone at my workplace.
As it stands now, even with a small (token, really) "wellness"
initiative at my workplace, last year only 4% of people on the policy
used 90% of the insurance payouts. Stop and think about that for a
minute - If we made that 4% pay their fair share, my insurance would cost
only 10% of what it currently does. And you want to suggest that I
have no right to complain???
for they must be the most boring people in the world.
I eat well, don't smoke, and exercise regularly. Wow, dullsville,
eh? It doesn't take much more than that.
So, what if I have good genes.... and you have bad?
In that situation, we will both still do better if we don't smoke and maintain a BMI below 25.
I totally oppose penalties/benefits for aspects of our biology we can't control. I do, however, support such incentives for those aspects controllable by lifestyle choices. If you have bum genes for your heart, you can't change that. If you weigh 350 (and don't measure 7'4"), lay off the Big Macs. Simple as that.
Say you would have to pay 250$ to purchase a domain name. How
many would a squatter be willing to buy?
Of course, that would limit domain names to basically the corporate-only
world, since how many private individuals would pay that much just
to have their blog or family website at its own name?
You want to get rid of squatters? Simple:
1) Elimintate "tasting" completely.
2) Require an actual site (not just a page of ads) go live at any give
address within 30 days.
That would, however, reduce the registrars' profits, so you'll
never see them happen.
I fail to see the point of allowing new TLDs... How many do we have now,
yet unless you have a.com,.net,.org, or.edu (and even then, most people
stop at the first one or two of those), you may as well have a random
unpronounceable string of characters, because no one will find you
except via links.
This will have one and only one useful effect - It will add more TLDs
we can safely block as spam sources (yeah, suuuure we see a lot
of legit.biz and.info email) without giving them a second thought.
Don't know where you live, but in most areas of the
U.S. you legally need a permit and an inspection to
perform any electrical work on residential wiring.
Not for sub-50V systems, with most DIY PV installations at
12 or 48V.
As a licensed Master Electrician and former County building
inspector, I can state with great confidence that simply reading
a book such as "B&D Complete Guide to Home wiring" does not render
one competent to undertake even moderately complex residential
wiring projects.
Gimme a break... 99% of home wiring amounts to nothing more than
connecting like colors. "Licensed" electricians have a hell of a
scam going on, and those "laws" you refer to exist solely due to
your own guild pushing to make itself relevant in the face of work
that any moron can handle.
Yes, tasks exist that I wouldn't do myself - I'd never try to
wire a panel to the mains myself; But I say that simply because I
consider my life worth more than a few hundred dollars, not because
I have any doubt that I could do it correctly (and in fact
I have wired sub-panels successfully).
...Started re-using old titles for new, mostly-unrelated games? This annoyed me with Prince of Persia last(?) year as
well.
I can accept sequels as a fact of life, but Alone in the Dark came out in 1992. Like PoP, it too had a number of
sequels (at least two) and numerous console ports, and (unlike PoP) even a movie.
C'mon, Atari - Whether or not the game sucks, can you perhaps come up with a new name? Or failing that,
can you at least stick a new number on it to avoid confusion?
Lets see it is a political story, on the negative side and
does not mention the party the person is a member of. Quick survey
what party is Chris Dodds a member of?
Does it really matter?
Both major parties seem pretty much identical lately. Both want
to tax us into penury to pay for crap most people oppose (though they
do slightly differ in the specifics of "crap"). Both want to strip
of of our civil liberties as rapidly as possible without causing a
revolt. Both supported the war in Iraq, though one side admits it
wants to keep us there forever while the other has "only" voted not to
pull out at every chance given.
Both sides consist largely of rich old men from a handful of old-money
families that have always dominated US politics.
Change? Yeah. They want change - Fewer rights for us, more money
for themselves.
You lose your driving licence after repeated speeding;
that's your car grounded for three years, a resource used
by the whole household.
Your wife and license-bearing kids can still use the car.
You can sell the car. You can loan it to friends. You can
even convince local teens to drive you to the mall in exchange
for providing them a way to get there at the same time. You
can still physically drive it in emergencies.
Slashdot Mirror
Encryption on your computer only provides for you, and only if you are neither of the above.
That doesn't even make sense, unless you believe I singlehandedly have the power to make Windows and OS-X come preinstalled with decent easy-to-use encryption.
No, I'm quite positive that you do have a hidden volume. It's where you're storing all of your terrorist secrets, and unless you reveal the password then this ballpeen hammer has a date with your fingers.
Although you have something of a point, I think all those damned trees have blocked your view of the forest.
Very, very few of us use TC because we fear having our fingers broken to discover our secrets. We use it to keep client data safe from accidental loss; we use it to store personal info on shared machines at work; we use it to protect our financial records on home PCs from possible compromise. We may even use it to hide some questionably legal material, but generally nothing that will cause us to vanish one night and wake up in Jordan with a date with a rusty drillbit.
In theory, yes, I absolutely agree with you that easy-to-use encryption should come preinstalled everywhere. In practice, plausible deniability works well enough in the Western world that I simply don't care whether or not the NSA could theoretically detect whether or not I have a hidden TC volume.
But it won't do you much good, and in reality, you'll never have time to read foreign journals (or looked at another way, it would be a comparative waste of your time given the quantity of good material you could be reading in English).
I'll second that, with an additional personal anecdote.
I took almost eight years of French, from elementary school through highschool. I took another language in College (which I won't name as few enough people take it that it would make me more easily identifiable... Hi Bob from HR!), at which I became reasonably fluent. I also learned Esperanto on my own, under the delusion that it seemed like a useful skill.
And today, I can barely say "Bonjour". I can, with a dictionary, ploddingly make my way through simple (as in, newspaper-level grammar) written French. The other two, I can barely remember a word of, written or spoken.
The problem with languages involves use. If you don't use them, you VERY quickly lose them. Personally, I view every second of time I spent learning languages (and not an inconsiderable amount of time at that... I'd measure it in the thousands of hours over my life) as a complete and utter waste. I would have better spent my time sleeping, or out drinking with the boys, or doing just about anything else, than learning something I'd forget within a few years.
Now... For some people, natural languages come easily. If you happen to have that skill, and want to work for the State Department or some intelligence agency, have at it. Otherwise... Don't waste your time. The world speaks English.
Slashdot will think that you should be able to use anything you damn well please as long as it's Open Source.
If a viable FOSS solution exists, why pay more for less?
Yes, especially if the people who sign you paycheck tell you that's what you have to do.
If you write nothing but crappy apps targetting a single platform, that works (though I still consider it suicidally stupid to deliberately cripple your best people for the purpose of pissing them off by treating them as interchangeable cogs). If, however, you occasionally need to write firmware, good luck using Ruby on Rails. Likewise, if you occasionally need a web app but usually focus on Win32, welcome to a world of hell, brought to you by trying to squeeze Visual Studio into a niche best filled by FOSS solutions.
When upper management leads the company in the business world, they can do at least some good. When they start dictating policies relating to skills they can't even pretend to understand, time to find a new job, because the current one will soon vanish (after a long and painful downhill ride that they will, of course, blame on the people who actually need to live with their "policies").
Maybe. A lot depends on how well the team is managed.
Maybe indeed... As I said, if you only ever do a single type of coding, you might get away with a single standardized tool.
Realistically, however, you don't win a marathon by cutting off all non-right feet.
attaining the necessary volume might involve power levels that could cause neural damage.
Yeah, that'll stop this from widespread use.
Like how they banned Tasers, because attaining the necessary pain might involve power levels that could cause cardiac arrhythmia.
Oh, wait, no they don't... All those people died of "excited delerium", not Taser-induced arrhythmia. Slip o' the tongue there, don't sue me bro...
If the G8 summit were to agree on these measures and enforce them through international cooperation, could they really cut down piracy, or would they be impractical to enforce?
Not a matter of impractical... You have a stegosaurus trying to step on all those pesky little rats that recently appeared on the scene.
The stegosaurus can do whatever it wants, and the rats can't stop it. The rats, however, will last far longer than the dinosaurs.
Is it still the Web if[...]
Yes. All the "problems" you mention derive solely from your preconceived notions about what "the web" means.
Directness of navigation, indexing, searching, and browser compatibility have nothing to do with "complies with HTTP".
Now, in the last case (only certain clients or devices work), you can say that something using port 80 for non-HTTP traffic doesn't count as "the web"... But that seems like complaining that your PC doesn't run your favorite games when you use it as a boat anchor.
Such questions bely a much bigger question for Web developers
Well, yes and no. Web developers may need to ask themselves whether they want to write standards-compatible web pages, or arbitrary network-enabled apps (which would, IMO, make them no longer "web developers"). But beyond that... Nothing to see here, move along. If you eat an orange, don't complain that it doesn't taste like an apple.
I'd think with enough losses along the way
;-)
You can say that about any energy storage mechanism, from capacitors to compressed air to iron-pine-cones-on-a-chain.
I think we can safely presume that the engineers involved in this project took such issues under consideration and didn't choose to use Playschool's My First Wind Turbine.
I'm not suggesting that bleeding-edge science should be economically feasible
This doesn't really count as "bleeding edge"... I don't know if the world has ever seen any large-scale implementations of the idea, but cavern-based compressed air storage of energy has existed since (at least) the 1960s.
And conceptually, this doesn't differ drastically from pumping water uphill, except that you need a cave instead of a reservoir.
I'm no software engineer [...] but what about the processes that are slow and plodding and sequential? How do those get sped up if you're opting for more cores instead of more cycles?
As a software engineer, I wonder the same thing.
Put simply, the majority of code simply doesn't parallelize well. You can break out a few major portions of it to run as their own threads, but for the most part, programs either sit around and wait for the user, or sit around and wait for hardware resources.
Within that, only those programs that wait for a particular hardware resource - CPU time - Even have the potential to benefit from more cores... And while a lot of those might split well into a few threads, most will not scale (without a complete rewrite to chose entirely different algorithms - If they even exist to accomplish the intended purpose) to more than a handful of cores.
In order to upload you have to send the data in one big POST request and there's no way, via HTTP, to poll the results on the server.
In HTTP, perhaps not. In TCP, yes - Because you can't send all that much in a single big packet, and you (can) know how many packets you've sent out.
As proof-of-concept, Curl and wget seem to have no problem showing a reasonably accurate progress bar.
I've got the WD MyBook WE 2 TB drive a few weeks ago.
I'd second this as a great option for a standalone hardware solution that costs only a hair more than the bare drives themselves.
The MBWE's have a thriving "enthusiast" community as well, so you can pretty much mod it to do anything from the intended use to making your toast in the morning. Just throw away the Windows-side software it comes with, which reduces performance for the purpose of limiting your rights. Yeah, suuuuuure...
One warning about them, though - They do not have a high throughput... On a switched gigabit LAN, it manages about 4.5 to 6MB/s... Enough to stream music and a DVD or two, great for backups, but you won't want to use this as your primary storage.
I've heard of a project to strip Samba down a bit to use less CPU (the limiting resource on the MBWE), but I wouldn't buy this expecting that anytime soon.
That said, I do love it and plan to get a second one within the next month.
My guess is that nVidia will put a stop to this pretty quickly.
How? AMD/ATI didn't do anything - A third party extracted the the cat from the bag, and we all (except nVidia) benefit as a result.
AMD doesn't need to do anything more than not break the interface used to make the port possible.
At this point it should be obvious what the SSL certificate system provides you with, which is a clear chain of responsibility for breaches in security.
You use the word "liability" in a curious manner here, suggesting that you've spent too much time with PHBs (or worse, may count as one yourself - No offense intended, may FSM have mercy on your soul)... Although the corporate world may care who to point the finger at, the rest of us just want to know that www.mybank.com really goes to my bank, and that no one can snoop in on their conversation.
For the former, self-signed certs don't suffice. Although in theory neither do CA-issued certs (you listed four vectors of attack, with the end user themselves as the most likely to fail), they count as the best means of identification commonly available.
For the latter, "identification" doesn't always matter. I don't really care if my "News for Nerds" comes from Slashdot or someone disguised as Slashdot; I do, however, prefer that my employer (which allows reading Slashdot) not have the ability to associate my Slashdot handle with my real identity. Encryption alone will suffice for that, so a self-signed cert would do just fine.
I understand why we would combine those two functions into one mechanism, but people need to understand that self-signed still beats unencrypted HTTP by quite a lot.
Less people watching TV. They might read more or actually get outside more.
People watching TV don't cost me money in insurance premiums (as long as they exercise enough otherwise).
That will reduce the number of trees used to print books since most people would no longer be able to buy one.
People reading books don't cost me money in insurance premiums.
So what happens when they tax something that you like to do?
In this thread, I've seen countless straw-men about "what if they come after your vices". My vices don't cost anyone anything, so have no relevance to the topic at hand. If, however, someone discovers that something I enjoy has broad economic consequences, then I will decide if I like it enough to keep doing it and pay the price, rather than expecting you to subsidize my vices. Simple as that - Plain ol' personal responsibility.
Let me put this simply - I don't care about you (in the abstract, I don't mean this personally). I don't care if you eat until you need to wear a tent, smoke crack until your heart explodes, or inhale powdered asbestos because you like the way it tickles. I do care when you cost me money (or worse, time), however, and this issue reduces to that one fact.
What has gone wrong so that apparently intelligent, apparently serious people can propose levying penalties on how much another individual eats?
Because what other people in my group health plan eat/smoke raises my insurance premiums. Simple as that.
If that doesn't negate personal freedom, I don't know what does.
Note that I specifically did not say "ban" such behaviors. I 100% support anyone's choice to kill themselves via food, drink, smoking, or even most currently illegal substances. But as part of that choice, they, not I, should have to pay the incurred cost of their medical care.
Do you do risky things sometimes?
Yes, I do. And if you gave me a "price list" of penalties for engaging in them, I'd probably still choose to indulge most of my vices. But at least I would pay for that, not everyone at my workplace.
As it stands now, even with a small (token, really) "wellness" initiative at my workplace, last year only 4% of people on the policy used 90% of the insurance payouts. Stop and think about that for a minute - If we made that 4% pay their fair share, my insurance would cost only 10% of what it currently does. And you want to suggest that I have no right to complain???
for they must be the most boring people in the world.
I eat well, don't smoke, and exercise regularly. Wow, dullsville, eh? It doesn't take much more than that.
So, what if I have good genes.... and you have bad?
In that situation, we will both still do better if we don't smoke and maintain a BMI below 25.
I totally oppose penalties/benefits for aspects of our biology we can't control. I do, however, support such incentives for those aspects controllable by lifestyle choices. If you have bum genes for your heart, you can't change that. If you weigh 350 (and don't measure 7'4"), lay off the Big Macs. Simple as that.
Aside: Did you know we can cure cancer with Vitamin D? Sadly, the dosis required is lethal to humans...
You could say the same for a bullet...
Say you would have to pay 250$ to purchase a domain name. How many would a squatter be willing to buy?
Of course, that would limit domain names to basically the corporate-only world, since how many private individuals would pay that much just to have their blog or family website at its own name?
You want to get rid of squatters? Simple:
1) Elimintate "tasting" completely.
2) Require an actual site (not just a page of ads) go live at any give address within 30 days.
That would, however, reduce the registrars' profits, so you'll never see them happen.
I fail to see the point of allowing new TLDs... How many do we have now, yet unless you have a .com, .net, .org, or .edu (and even then, most people
stop at the first one or two of those), you may as well have a random
unpronounceable string of characters, because no one will find you
except via links.
.biz and .info email) without giving them a second thought.
This will have one and only one useful effect - It will add more TLDs we can safely block as spam sources (yeah, suuuure we see a lot of legit
Don't know where you live, but in most areas of the U.S. you legally need a permit and an inspection to perform any electrical work on residential wiring.
Not for sub-50V systems, with most DIY PV installations at 12 or 48V.
As a licensed Master Electrician and former County building inspector, I can state with great confidence that simply reading a book such as "B&D Complete Guide to Home wiring" does not render one competent to undertake even moderately complex residential wiring projects.
Gimme a break... 99% of home wiring amounts to nothing more than connecting like colors. "Licensed" electricians have a hell of a scam going on, and those "laws" you refer to exist solely due to your own guild pushing to make itself relevant in the face of work that any moron can handle.
Yes, tasks exist that I wouldn't do myself - I'd never try to wire a panel to the mains myself; But I say that simply because I consider my life worth more than a few hundred dollars, not because I have any doubt that I could do it correctly (and in fact I have wired sub-panels successfully).
...Started re-using old titles for new, mostly-unrelated games? This annoyed me with Prince of Persia last(?) year as well.
I can accept sequels as a fact of life, but Alone in the Dark came out in 1992. Like PoP, it too had a number of sequels (at least two) and numerous console ports, and (unlike PoP) even a movie.
C'mon, Atari - Whether or not the game sucks, can you perhaps come up with a new name? Or failing that, can you at least stick a new number on it to avoid confusion?
Lets see it is a political story, on the negative side and does not mention the party the person is a member of. Quick survey what party is Chris Dodds a member of?
Does it really matter?
Both major parties seem pretty much identical lately. Both want to tax us into penury to pay for crap most people oppose (though they do slightly differ in the specifics of "crap"). Both want to strip of of our civil liberties as rapidly as possible without causing a revolt. Both supported the war in Iraq, though one side admits it wants to keep us there forever while the other has "only" voted not to pull out at every chance given.
Both sides consist largely of rich old men from a handful of old-money families that have always dominated US politics.
Change? Yeah. They want change - Fewer rights for us, more money for themselves.
You lose your driving licence after repeated speeding; that's your car grounded for three years, a resource used by the whole household.
Your wife and license-bearing kids can still use the car. You can sell the car. You can loan it to friends. You can even convince local teens to drive you to the mall in exchange for providing them a way to get there at the same time. You can still physically drive it in emergencies.
"That, and the fact that IT audits their own logs, are why we are able to manage the confidential data without noticing snooping."
FTFY.
But overall it has to work on trust, or we'd all be drowning in audit trails.
Yeah, that pretty much describes the effects of SOx...