>> "declare war against countries which actively >> shield Al Quaeda." > > Excellent idea! Now we just need to get Congress > to approve declarations of war against... > Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, > Saudi Arabia, Palestine... oh wait, doesn't > exist yet... Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya, Georgia > (the country - relax you southerners...), and > about a dozen or so other countries I can't > think of offhand.
Yes. Exactly.
Because with the legislation we've passed, that's effectively what we have already DONE.
The people in these countries are all wondering what's going to happen when we're finished with Iraq, and then Iran; they're wondering when we'll get around to THEM. They see the USA as a foreign state mad with power and stung by a bee, and thrashing around attacking anyone who's been unfortunate enough to disagree with them. Even worse, they have a point.
Certainly we have a valid beef with them for sheltering an organization that attacked the US, but we're giving them no certainty as to what we're going to do about it.
I don't recommend you use the infrared ports for any serious communications. While it may be convenient for trivial tasks, I wouldn't commit anything as important as a file transfer to it. The link just isn't hardy. Do yourself a favor, get a crossover ethernet cable and just hook the two machines together.
A friend and I worked out a few calculations on the black hole...
Assuming it was 3 million solar masses, the diameter of its Schwartzchild limit (effectively the diameter of the black hole) would be 8.8 million kilometers, or about 6-1/3 times the diameter of our sun.
If the Earth were in orbit around this black hole at the same distance we are from the sun (assuming it wouldn't be torn to shreds by tidal stresses), a year would be 5 hours long.
Why should the US declare war when the attackers don't? For the same reason that two wrongs don't make a right. Otherwise we're adding credibility to the arguments that the US is a "rogue state", lashing out at anyone we see fit, and that the rest of the world should fear and despise us.
How can we declare war against an enemy that resides inside no specifically defined borders? That's easy. Declare war against all members of Al Quaeda. Then work diplomatically with countries where we have some friends, and declare war against countries which actively shield Al Quaeda.
Instead, we haven't even declared war against a group; we've declared it against a concept. "Terrorism". And the war looks to be permanent.
I hold a strong contempt for the USA/Patriot Act because it places the United States in a state of war, with no formal declaration of war.
The US Constitution has specific terms dealing with our country being in a state of war, and it also specifies that when the war is over, those limitations on our freedom also disappear. Instead, Congress has declared a "sort-of, kinda war" with no specifics, and with many permanent limitations placed on our freedoms. Similarly, Congress has not declared war on Iraq, it has merely authorized the President to order an attack on that country.
Actually, I do quite a bit of my web work with a text editor; but laying out tables strictly with text is a royal pain. For that, a nice, simple WYSIWYG tool is better. Mozilla's editor lets me quickly switch in between those modes, so I'm pretty fond of it.
To tell the truth, however, I much preferred Netscape Communicator's WYSIWYG interface over Mozilla's current one; Mozilla is a bit less flexible in table-building.
> But why would it not be better if every component > of Mozilla was a completely seperate application?
That's NOT what I was asking for. Obviously the email and composer components use a lot of the same functions as Mozilla's browser, so having to load them all over again isn't efficient. I just wanted the libraries segregated, modularized, so if necessary one could cut dead weight.
If Mozilla's "framework" were so tight, then why is it Phoenix's offering loads up more quickly than Mozilla? If the functions required for the mail, composer and IRC clients were moved into separate libraries then they could be pruned by the user if he so desired.
I'd probably always still install the full Mozilla product, but having the option would be a nice thing.
But I *like* those functions...
on
Phoenix 0.3 Is Out
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I can see why many people would prefer to get Mozilla's browser apart from all the other junk. But the fact is, I *like* the email client, and web page composer. So I'll keep using the full Mozilla release.
On the other hand, the IRC client could disappear for all I care, and if dumping it would lose some of the bloat, I'd be all for it. Maybe the Mozilla dev team should consider making their product more modular, so components can be excluded.
Is the total time spent by people in your department on backup operations approaching 40 hours per week? If your department needs more manpower anyway, and the bosses are considering hiring another person, then yes, you might as well dedicate this guy to backup solutions. Specialization is more cost effective than interrupting other jobs to do the work.
I read Soma's rebuttal, and frankly, I thought it was a crock of crap. Just because most current small stations aren't listened to doesn't mean they should be thrown to the wolves, or that there wouldn't be newer stations that would fare better.
This ruling effectively creates a limit below which operating a small webcasting station using RIAA-controlled music is effectively impossible. Only well-funded offerings will be able to survive, and this will limit the number of potential stations. This benefits the RIAA enormously, since they HAVE enough money to "consolidate" those limited number of stations, placing them effectively under their control.
It's not that you can't use the free version to develop competitors; it's that you aren't allowed to use the free version at all if you're developing something competitive. This is a very different thing; it means that you can't even have it installed on any of the machines owned by a company doing the development, or on any of the machines owned by a coder working on such a project.
Since Linux relies on the software, it means that if you want to do any kernel hacking, you're stuck with buying a license for the commercial version, for as many machines as you want to be able to work on the kernel with. This would produce a terrible drag on development of a competitor for Linux.
It may not be a fatal drag, if the coders and companies want to switch to a BSD variant, for instance, or if they have the cash to spring for the licenses -- unlikely if they're developing it as free software. But at some point the coders will want to get the thing working on Linux, and the licensing arrangement kicks in.
Two caveats: On the one hand, if the competitive software doesn't use Bitkeeper itself, it would be very difficult to prove the authors are using Bitkeeper for other purposes... On the other hand, if the authors produce any other software that requires Bitkeeper... Watch out!
> he continued to allow any tools/language, but > only 'supported' M$.
I can understand your complaining about his not allowing the use of non-Microsoft tools. Whining that he won't "support" them is another matter. What would you do, force the teacher to study all the other software tools on all the other platforms so he'd be ready to assist you with your particular flavor?
I'm not a huge fan of MS's business tactics, but you're going too far.
And I don't feel it would be "slight". Searching amongst the pad would require a statistical comparison between two messages; given a good cryptosystem, those statistics would be practically impossible to find. On the flip side, analysis of the cyphertext under the additional cryptosystem would be stifled by the need to check each bit combination possible in the pad.
This effect would also be produced by layering the crypto on twice, but a break in the crypto would affect both layers and might lead to easy analysis, whereas unless the cryptosystem were completely broken adding in the pad data would help protect the plaintext.
Right now, setting up a small in-home intranet running IP6 without a dedicated computer running network translation as the firewall. This is more than most people would want to handle. And setting up some of the advanced IP6 features would be non-trivial.
On the other hand, if IP6 translation, "DHCP" and some of the more interesting features were provided for commonly available proxy hardware, like Linksys's Cable/DSL router (and the hardware could even run a mixed network, translating internal communications as well as gatewaying out), one could get IP6 up more easily, exercise their drivers, experiment, etc.
Is that he's taking a really really large one-time pad, then giving bytewise (or bitwise) offsets into the data, then XORing with the cleartext to get the cyphertext.
This would have two serious weaknesses. First off, if it were used enough times and there were overlap of data, the computing necessary to pick out the overlap and solve it would be doable. Given a bitwise offset on a billion bit (128 megabyte) one-time pad, a supercomputer could rattle through the billion possible combinations while comparing double frequencies and find the overlap, and both messages could potentially be solved.
The other problem would be the physical existence of the one-time pad; unlike a memorized passphrase in combination with an obscured key, the pad can be stolen.
This idea DOES have some merits, however; in combination with a modern cryptosystem, it would add greatly to the obscurity of the cyphertext and help prevent its being analyzed.
Part of the reason IP6 is finding so much resistance is because very few people have any experience with it. How can you run a box with the IP6 protocol when nothing on your net will talk to it?
Maybe it would be a good idea to start rolling out firmware versions that will allow people to run IP6 on their intranets. Get their Linksys Cable/DSL routers talking IP6 on the private side of the network. Obviously not everyone would want to do this, but for those who dared to convert it would provide essential experience in IP6 operation. It would also provide a future starting point for when ISPs offer IP6 access.
Email them to the RIAA, of course. I'm sure they'll be glad to make room in their mailbox, and then get the songs to the people they were "stolen" from.
Slashdot Mirror
>> "declare war against countries which actively
>> shield Al Quaeda."
>
> Excellent idea! Now we just need to get Congress
> to approve declarations of war against...
> Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon,
> Saudi Arabia, Palestine... oh wait, doesn't
> exist yet... Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya, Georgia
> (the country - relax you southerners...), and
> about a dozen or so other countries I can't
> think of offhand.
Yes. Exactly.
Because with the legislation we've passed, that's effectively what we have already DONE.
The people in these countries are all wondering what's going to happen when we're finished with Iraq, and then Iran; they're wondering when we'll get around to THEM. They see the USA as a foreign state mad with power and stung by a bee, and thrashing around attacking anyone who's been unfortunate enough to disagree with them. Even worse, they have a point.
Certainly we have a valid beef with them for sheltering an organization that attacked the US, but we're giving them no certainty as to what we're going to do about it.
I don't recommend you use the infrared ports for any serious communications. While it may be convenient for trivial tasks, I wouldn't commit anything as important as a file transfer to it. The link just isn't hardy. Do yourself a favor, get a crossover ethernet cable and just hook the two machines together.
A friend and I worked out a few calculations on the black hole...
Assuming it was 3 million solar masses, the diameter of its Schwartzchild limit (effectively the diameter of the black hole) would be 8.8 million kilometers, or about 6-1/3 times the diameter of our sun.
If the Earth were in orbit around this black hole at the same distance we are from the sun (assuming it wouldn't be torn to shreds by tidal stresses), a year would be 5 hours long.
The "Campaign for Freedom" public service announcements were produced by the Ad Council; you can view the PSAs online at http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for_fr eedom/.
Why should the US declare war when the attackers don't? For the same reason that two wrongs don't make a right. Otherwise we're adding credibility to the arguments that the US is a "rogue state", lashing out at anyone we see fit, and that the rest of the world should fear and despise us.
How can we declare war against an enemy that resides inside no specifically defined borders? That's easy. Declare war against all members of Al Quaeda. Then work diplomatically with countries where we have some friends, and declare war against countries which actively shield Al Quaeda.
Instead, we haven't even declared war against a group; we've declared it against a concept. "Terrorism". And the war looks to be permanent.
I hold a strong contempt for the USA/Patriot Act because it places the United States in a state of war, with no formal declaration of war.
The US Constitution has specific terms dealing with our country being in a state of war, and it also specifies that when the war is over, those limitations on our freedom also disappear. Instead, Congress has declared a "sort-of, kinda war" with no specifics, and with many permanent limitations placed on our freedoms. Similarly, Congress has not declared war on Iraq, it has merely authorized the President to order an attack on that country.
Actually, I do quite a bit of my web work with a text editor; but laying out tables strictly with text is a royal pain. For that, a nice, simple WYSIWYG tool is better. Mozilla's editor lets me quickly switch in between those modes, so I'm pretty fond of it.
To tell the truth, however, I much preferred Netscape Communicator's WYSIWYG interface over Mozilla's current one; Mozilla is a bit less flexible in table-building.
> But why would it not be better if every component
> of Mozilla was a completely seperate application?
That's NOT what I was asking for. Obviously the email and composer components use a lot of the same functions as Mozilla's browser, so having to load them all over again isn't efficient. I just wanted the libraries segregated, modularized, so if necessary one could cut dead weight.
If Mozilla's "framework" were so tight, then why is it Phoenix's offering loads up more quickly than Mozilla? If the functions required for the mail, composer and IRC clients were moved into separate libraries then they could be pruned by the user if he so desired.
I'd probably always still install the full Mozilla product, but having the option would be a nice thing.
I can see why many people would prefer to get Mozilla's browser apart from all the other junk. But the fact is, I *like* the email client, and web page composer. So I'll keep using the full Mozilla release.
On the other hand, the IRC client could disappear for all I care, and if dumping it would lose some of the bloat, I'd be all for it. Maybe the Mozilla dev team should consider making their product more modular, so components can be excluded.
Is the total time spent by people in your department on backup operations approaching 40 hours per week? If your department needs more manpower anyway, and the bosses are considering hiring another person, then yes, you might as well dedicate this guy to backup solutions. Specialization is more cost effective than interrupting other jobs to do the work.
More cycles for the Optimal Goulomb Ruler search!
...Same as the old boss.
I read Soma's rebuttal, and frankly, I thought it was a crock of crap. Just because most current small stations aren't listened to doesn't mean they should be thrown to the wolves, or that there wouldn't be newer stations that would fare better.
This ruling effectively creates a limit below which operating a small webcasting station using RIAA-controlled music is effectively impossible. Only well-funded offerings will be able to survive, and this will limit the number of potential stations. This benefits the RIAA enormously, since they HAVE enough money to "consolidate" those limited number of stations, placing them effectively under their control.
It's not that you can't use the free version to develop competitors; it's that you aren't allowed to use the free version at all if you're developing something competitive. This is a very different thing; it means that you can't even have it installed on any of the machines owned by a company doing the development, or on any of the machines owned by a coder working on such a project.
Since Linux relies on the software, it means that if you want to do any kernel hacking, you're stuck with buying a license for the commercial version, for as many machines as you want to be able to work on the kernel with. This would produce a terrible drag on development of a competitor for Linux.
It may not be a fatal drag, if the coders and companies want to switch to a BSD variant, for instance, or if they have the cash to spring for the licenses -- unlikely if they're developing it as free software. But at some point the coders will want to get the thing working on Linux, and the licensing arrangement kicks in.
Two caveats: On the one hand, if the competitive software doesn't use Bitkeeper itself, it would be very difficult to prove the authors are using Bitkeeper for other purposes... On the other hand, if the authors produce any other software that requires Bitkeeper... Watch out!
> he continued to allow any tools/language, but
> only 'supported' M$.
I can understand your complaining about his not allowing the use of non-Microsoft tools. Whining that he won't "support" them is another matter. What would you do, force the teacher to study all the other software tools on all the other platforms so he'd be ready to assist you with your particular flavor?
I'm not a huge fan of MS's business tactics, but you're going too far.
And Slate thinks TiVo is doomed? When their competitors are trying to sell virtually the same thing for $1,400? Hah, I say! Hah!
You need a cell phone.
"Hey Mike! I can't fix this piece of !@)$#*@#$, come down here and help me!"
And I don't feel it would be "slight". Searching amongst the pad would require a statistical comparison between two messages; given a good cryptosystem, those statistics would be practically impossible to find. On the flip side, analysis of the cyphertext under the additional cryptosystem would be stifled by the need to check each bit combination possible in the pad.
This effect would also be produced by layering the crypto on twice, but a break in the crypto would affect both layers and might lead to easy analysis, whereas unless the cryptosystem were completely broken adding in the pad data would help protect the plaintext.
That's not quite what I meant...
Right now, setting up a small in-home intranet running IP6 without a dedicated computer running network translation as the firewall. This is more than most people would want to handle. And setting up some of the advanced IP6 features would be non-trivial.
On the other hand, if IP6 translation, "DHCP" and some of the more interesting features were provided for commonly available proxy hardware, like Linksys's Cable/DSL router (and the hardware could even run a mixed network, translating internal communications as well as gatewaying out), one could get IP6 up more easily, exercise their drivers, experiment, etc.
Is that he's taking a really really large one-time pad, then giving bytewise (or bitwise) offsets into the data, then XORing with the cleartext to get the cyphertext.
This would have two serious weaknesses. First off, if it were used enough times and there were overlap of data, the computing necessary to pick out the overlap and solve it would be doable. Given a bitwise offset on a billion bit (128 megabyte) one-time pad, a supercomputer could rattle through the billion possible combinations while comparing double frequencies and find the overlap, and both messages could potentially be solved.
The other problem would be the physical existence of the one-time pad; unlike a memorized passphrase in combination with an obscured key, the pad can be stolen.
This idea DOES have some merits, however; in combination with a modern cryptosystem, it would add greatly to the obscurity of the cyphertext and help prevent its being analyzed.
Part of the reason IP6 is finding so much resistance is because very few people have any experience with it. How can you run a box with the IP6 protocol when nothing on your net will talk to it?
Maybe it would be a good idea to start rolling out firmware versions that will allow people to run IP6 on their intranets. Get their Linksys Cable/DSL routers talking IP6 on the private side of the network. Obviously not everyone would want to do this, but for those who dared to convert it would provide essential experience in IP6 operation. It would also provide a future starting point for when ISPs offer IP6 access.
Your dog starts bugging you, so you pick up his toy ball and throw it. "Fetch!"
Then you turn back to your computer... To find his pink toy ball sitting on the desk, and realize you've just thrown him your keyboard.
http://www.escapeartist.com/japan/japan.htm
Escape Artist magazine is a resource for people seeking expatriate employment, or for a new place to live.
GMTA :-)
Email them to the RIAA, of course. I'm sure they'll be glad to make room in their mailbox, and then get the songs to the people they were "stolen" from.