Caster3D was developed within a Debian Lenny derived rootstrap within Scratchbox2. It was built intrinsically under Debian Lenny with libc symbol verison pinning, but will run on anything from around the Debian Sarge era forward in 32 or 64-bits (when you put the 32-bit compat runtimes on...which you'd need for most commercial applications that're not explicitly 64-bit at this time.). No software dependency resolution- just a capable 3D card, sound card, mouse and keyboard.
If you don't put effort into the development of the code, you can have the sorts of issues you refer to- but you don't HAVE to have those problems all the same. Through the tricks I use or something like Autopackage, you can accomplish the very thing I refer to.
The problem's been there since the start of "smartphones".
There's ALWAYS some gotcha or "incompatibility" even within J2ME applications. You might get it to work, you mihgt not. And you'll have to test, test, test on all the phones and service plans- and always HAVE had to.
It's not a valid argument, really- never has been.
Considering that Conficker doesn't need misconfigured boxes to work (Keep in mind the true boneheaded nature of the problem- remote admin on and a default password...it's NOT the same thing...)- so, to quote youreself...
Grow. Up.
They're not the same thing and you need to get over yourself.
Currently the Botnet is using the Linux routers- but it's not an overall stretch, if there's any firmware update ability, to imagine someone injecting a similar beastie into the VxWorks versions of the routers if the remote admin functionality is turned on. All that is needed then is configuring to reflash and then doing the same- then the router would be compromised.
Just because it's VxWorks, it doesn't make it magically safe from being added to the Botnet. It's just that it's not being done now.
There's no good secure way to do what you're commenting on. How could you know what is properly authenticated or not to initiate the secure session? You can't without some sort of certificate or pre-shared key info. Even public key cryptography needs some semblance of an initial pre-shared tidbit- and PKI's are vastly less secure than most people think they are even when there's no compromises within the certificate chain directly.
As an exercise, I suggest you read up on some of the recent TLS exploits (they don't entail someone social engineering themselves a cert- you can software engineer yourself one nowadays...) or any of Bruce Schnier's books on Cryptography. It's not magic stuff that armors everything- it simply puts a price to getting at the information so secured that varies from keeping honest people honest to keeping the slightly dishonest out.
Depends on the drink, really. If you're in the habit of drinking The Balvenie 21 year old Scotch or similar, you can expect to spend somewhere on the order of 7-10 dollars a shot in most locations as it's roughly $200 a bottle retail.
If you're not going to pay them, just simply don't play the game. Doesn't matter if it's "easier", etc.
If they're going to treat me like a crook, I'll just find alternatives- because they CLEARLY don't want my money. Making infringements just gives them more excuses to make things worse. Not buying at all, if there's enough of their customer base to make things like Asassin's Creed 2 flop in the channel, they'll get the hint vastly quicker and back off. There was the same sort of crap that went on early in the days of personal computers- and it swiftly died a horrible death after 5 or so years once they figured out that people weren't buying because of the copy protection schemes being vastly worse than the problem they thought they were solving with it.
It's not hard. Just do without for a bit. They'll get the hint. Otherwise, just keep going on and keep giving them reasons to make the laws worse and doing stupider and stupider things like this new play.
Biofuels might be practical in the long-term if the Oil-Algae research pans out- and it's looking mildly promising there.
It might also be practical if we put a bit more effort into the research for Thermal De-Polymerization of biological waste products (useless byproducts of agriculture, etc...) into sweet crude. It works. It works well. It's just not "economically viable" right now more than anything else. More effort could be put there to possibly make it so.
Both items are possibles.
Wind power's got potential with some of the energy store technologies about to be deployed in the Texas panhandle (I know about this stuff, because I'm friends with the CEO of that company and have been tracking what they're doing.)
Solar's a bit of a stretch to say the least- mainly because it's efficiencies are lower right now. Get them up higher and the desert areas might be good candidates for getting power out onto the grid in the western areas of the country.
I'd have to concur with your assessment of Geothermal power there.
What's disappointing to me was that we poured roughly $700 billion into propping up the banks and other financial institutions in this country- organizations that can largely be shown to have been the cause of the current recession and much of the malaise we're currently encountering in our economy. And we've little to nothing to show for it save crumbling infrastructure (it's depressing seeing all the potholes on Interstate highways in the area right at the moment- and we won't get into the grid and other areas like this stuff...) and no good answers for us in the space we desperately need them. At least half of that money should have been plowed into overhauling the grid, majorly repairing the highways, putting several "manhattan project" type efforts into motion for things like biofuels to buy us time for the vehicle space, fusion research, pebble-bed fission research, and the like. But...that's not what we did.
The unmodified data that was used for the production of the theories in question WAS lost, according to that organization.
You'll have to re-gather data where it's present in it's entirety into one place. Keep in mind that somewhere along the way, some of the sensor data in some locations was discontinued and in others that would "prove" the theory were continued- so you're not going to get fully accurate data unless you set up all the sensors in all the locations, shut-down and current.
Have fun trying to reproduce the results as stated- because you're not going to have complete data that's not massaged right at the moment.
Indeed. Just because they're learned, doesn't make them knowing in other areas- or smart enough to be fast on their feet and figure it out on their own without help of someone that might know more on the out of field subject.
I've known PhD's that would blindly listen to what the vendor told the company and completely miss a simple, simple Nyquist sampling problem within the device that precluded it's use in a given role. That company's no longer in business and got bought out- at least in part by way of the fool's errand I mentioned there.
Nor do I. However, I do have serious concern, in light of the leaks we've recently had, that they're not doing a proper scientific process in that mix all the same- and they're using the "International" role of that org to whitewash over what is very possibly yet another batch of bad science, mixed in with a bit of politics and "religion" that we end up with from time to time- and all throughout history.
Heh... If the peers only have the erroneous, doctored data to go by, what conclusions would you think they would arrive at when they review the "research" that you're giving credence to?
Just because it's peer-reviewed, it doesn't make it much more valid than those blogs and YouTube videos you deride- all those are are where someone says validates that the research was done "properly" and there's no off in left field assertions and theories with the paper. To be honest, that's all peer-reviewed really means- there's less risk of crackpot ideas being promulgated (though it's completely possible if you've got people clandestinely massaging the data...) as good sound theories by way of peer review- it doesn't really validate things all that much.
If you're using something like a Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell to generate the electric power, you don't have nearly the waste you'd think and it'd take the fuels we're already used to and do direct conversion to electric power.
That's not saying that they'll succeed in making SOFC's usable in this context- but to say that electric cars equates to more batteries is being disingenuous there. Right now, it might equate to that, but the question would be more to which is more harmful to the environment- and it's not for certain either way.
For some aspects, the electric cars are currently more problematic.
For others the IC engines are- especially with the formulation games the fuel companies are playing of late with Ethanol being added to the mix, etc.
Until you get something like SOFC's or if EEStor or one of the other players like them succeeds in what they're attempting, you might be right. From my perspective, it's something of a push.
Wrong. It does and it doesn't. There's some aspects of the Constitution which apply in full force (with changes in procedure that alter the nature of the BoR's impact on things...) and some things that don't.
For example:
A civil asset seizure, if not properly done under a valid Warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment- just as if it were a criminal one. If the assets so seized are not immediately remanded, it's a Fifth Amendment violation (Unlawful Takings...). Any Civil discovery or Criminal evidence obtained from such a seizure is no longer admissible in court and is typically ordered to be destroyed at the moment of the discovery that the Fourth has been violated.
Testimony not able to be cross-examined prior to a trial or during is generally held to be inadmissible as hearsay per the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. Bank statements are excluded from this holding- but most everything else isn't going to fly.
In a courtroom, you may plead the Fifth in a Civil case, but you have to explicitly take it each and every time you are asked a question- and you can have negative inferences (i.e. it can be at least partly held against you in a decision...) from the Judge or Jury if you DO choose to take that route. And you can't let up once you start, you have to take it from that moment on.
You can't be tried under the Civil code by the the State or Federal government for something and then have it followed up by a Criminal code suit for the same specific violation (double-jeopardy). Though you can have a trial under the Criminal code and then be sued by the family of the deceased/injured in the context of a murder/manslaughter/etc. case as we've seen with the OJ Simpson story. That's allowed because it wasn't specifically the same cause (The state tried for murder, the family sued for damages, etc.).
The First Amendment is typically deemed to trump most every Civil and Criminal statute when applied in the manner it's usually done.
Most of these things apply to State level courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.
In truth, the Civil code's authority stems from the rules set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights affects it as much as the varying Penal codes.
Depends on what the country's statutes of limitations might be- if there is one, they can only attempt to collect within the timeframe allowed by law. If they can't, they can only get from you what they can collect during that time. If you're broke, they can't really collect, making you effectively what they call "judgment proof" for the duration of your inability to pay and the statute's clock, which begins when you default on it.
For Australia, I think it's something like 6 years for debts of any kind, based on a bit of Internet research on the subject.
Someone who buggers up that timetable is committing serious sabotage against that company, and consequently is going to get hit with a big stick - if only as a deterrent to others.
Yep. And, in the end, I think we're going to find that he's being charged with infringement, breach of trade secret, tortious interference, or some combo of part or all of the aforementioned before it's all said and done. And, honestly, while I won't call it stealing like some have (it's not), he very definitely needs to face the fines he's got coming to him on this and I've no sympathy for him because it was a willful illegal act all the same.
Then it was breach of trade secret or infringement that the person that we're discussing is guilty of, not theft. It's neither correct nor insightful to call it stealing- because, sadly, it still isn't that.
Sounds useful...if it's in your bookstore... Make sure you use cash, though- you're back to the same problem I pointed out if you're using checks, debit, or credit... >:-D
Interesting link. Ironic though that you have to supply information to the site just to get the guide- isn't it a bit of a violation of the rules of the game giving out information to get info on how to become anonymous? (Hey, I thought that all you need to become Anonymous is be lurking around on 4Chan...)
"illegal" is against the law- it doesn't relate to whether you go to jail or not.
Making unauthorized copies of media content is illegal- but depending on the nature, you could just be sued OR go to jail for it. There's tons more things like that on the books.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh...
I beg to differ with you on that score.
(Warning: Shameless Plug Alert!!)
Caster3D was developed within a Debian Lenny derived rootstrap within Scratchbox2. It was built intrinsically under Debian Lenny with libc symbol verison pinning, but will run on anything from around the Debian Sarge era forward in 32 or 64-bits (when you put the 32-bit compat runtimes on...which you'd need for most commercial applications that're not explicitly 64-bit at this time.). No software dependency resolution- just a capable 3D card, sound card, mouse and keyboard.
If you don't put effort into the development of the code, you can have the sorts of issues you refer to- but you don't HAVE to have those problems all the same. Through the tricks I use or something like Autopackage, you can accomplish the very thing I refer to.
The problem's been there since the start of "smartphones".
There's ALWAYS some gotcha or "incompatibility" even within J2ME applications. You might get it to work, you mihgt not. And you'll have to test, test, test on all the phones and service plans- and always HAVE had to.
It's not a valid argument, really- never has been.
Considering that Conficker doesn't need misconfigured boxes to work (Keep in mind the true boneheaded nature of the problem- remote admin on and a default password...it's NOT the same thing...)- so, to quote youreself...
Grow.
Up.
They're not the same thing and you need to get over yourself.
Currently the Botnet is using the Linux routers- but it's not an overall stretch, if there's any firmware update ability, to imagine someone injecting a similar beastie into the VxWorks versions of the routers if the remote admin functionality is turned on. All that is needed then is configuring to reflash and then doing the same- then the router would be compromised.
Just because it's VxWorks, it doesn't make it magically safe from being added to the Botnet. It's just that it's not being done now.
There's no good secure way to do what you're commenting on. How could you know what is properly authenticated or not to initiate the secure session? You can't without some sort of certificate or pre-shared key info. Even public key cryptography needs some semblance of an initial pre-shared tidbit- and PKI's are vastly less secure than most people think they are even when there's no compromises within the certificate chain directly.
As an exercise, I suggest you read up on some of the recent TLS exploits (they don't entail someone social engineering themselves a cert- you can software engineer yourself one nowadays...) or any of Bruce Schnier's books on Cryptography. It's not magic stuff that armors everything- it simply puts a price to getting at the information so secured that varies from keeping honest people honest to keeping the slightly dishonest out.
Depends on the drink, really. If you're in the habit of drinking The Balvenie 21 year old Scotch or similar, you can expect to spend somewhere on the order of 7-10 dollars a shot in most locations as it's roughly $200 a bottle retail.
Depends on the venue. Some places, that $100 will only buy you about 10 drinks tops.
If you're not going to pay them, just simply don't play the game. Doesn't matter if it's "easier", etc.
If they're going to treat me like a crook, I'll just find alternatives- because they CLEARLY don't want my money. Making infringements just gives them more excuses to make things worse. Not buying at all, if there's enough of their customer base to make things like Asassin's Creed 2 flop in the channel, they'll get the hint vastly quicker and back off. There was the same sort of crap that went on early in the days of personal computers- and it swiftly died a horrible death after 5 or so years once they figured out that people weren't buying because of the copy protection schemes being vastly worse than the problem they thought they were solving with it.
It's not hard. Just do without for a bit. They'll get the hint. Otherwise, just keep going on and keep giving them reasons to make the laws worse and doing stupider and stupider things like this new play.
Biofuels might be practical in the long-term if the Oil-Algae research pans out- and it's looking mildly promising there.
It might also be practical if we put a bit more effort into the research for Thermal De-Polymerization of biological waste products (useless byproducts of agriculture, etc...) into sweet crude. It works. It works well. It's just not "economically viable" right now more than anything else. More effort could be put there to possibly make it so.
Both items are possibles.
Wind power's got potential with some of the energy store technologies about to be deployed in the Texas panhandle (I know about this stuff, because I'm friends with the CEO of that company and have been tracking what they're doing.)
Solar's a bit of a stretch to say the least- mainly because it's efficiencies are lower right now. Get them up higher and the desert areas might be good candidates for getting power out onto the grid in the western areas of the country.
I'd have to concur with your assessment of Geothermal power there.
What's disappointing to me was that we poured roughly $700 billion into propping up the banks and other financial institutions in this country- organizations that can largely be shown to have been the cause of the current recession and much of the malaise we're currently encountering in our economy. And we've little to nothing to show for it save crumbling infrastructure (it's depressing seeing all the potholes on Interstate highways in the area right at the moment- and we won't get into the grid and other areas like this stuff...) and no good answers for us in the space we desperately need them. At least half of that money should have been plowed into overhauling the grid, majorly repairing the highways, putting several "manhattan project" type efforts into motion for things like biofuels to buy us time for the vehicle space, fusion research, pebble-bed fission research, and the like. But...that's not what we did.
The unmodified data that was used for the production of the theories in question WAS lost, according to that organization.
You'll have to re-gather data where it's present in it's entirety into one place. Keep in mind that somewhere along the way, some of the sensor data in some locations was discontinued and in others that would "prove" the theory were continued- so you're not going to get fully accurate data unless you set up all the sensors in all the locations, shut-down and current.
Have fun trying to reproduce the results as stated- because you're not going to have complete data that's not massaged right at the moment.
Indeed. Just because they're learned, doesn't make them knowing in other areas- or smart enough to be fast on their feet and figure it out on their own without help of someone that might know more on the out of field subject.
I've known PhD's that would blindly listen to what the vendor told the company and completely miss a simple, simple Nyquist sampling problem within the device that precluded it's use in a given role. That company's no longer in business and got bought out- at least in part by way of the fool's errand I mentioned there.
Nor do I. However, I do have serious concern, in light of the leaks we've recently had, that they're not doing a proper scientific process in that mix all the same- and they're using the "International" role of that org to whitewash over what is very possibly yet another batch of bad science, mixed in with a bit of politics and "religion" that we end up with from time to time- and all throughout history.
Heh... If the peers only have the erroneous, doctored data to go by, what conclusions would you think they would arrive at when they review the "research" that you're giving credence to?
Just because it's peer-reviewed, it doesn't make it much more valid than those blogs and YouTube videos you deride- all those are are where someone says validates that the research was done "properly" and there's no off in left field assertions and theories with the paper. To be honest, that's all peer-reviewed really means- there's less risk of crackpot ideas being promulgated (though it's completely possible if you've got people clandestinely massaging the data...) as good sound theories by way of peer review- it doesn't really validate things all that much.
Depends on the batteries for that score.
If you're using something like a Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell to generate the electric power, you don't have nearly the waste you'd think and it'd take the fuels we're already used to and do direct conversion to electric power.
That's not saying that they'll succeed in making SOFC's usable in this context- but to say that electric cars equates to more batteries is being disingenuous there. Right now, it might equate to that, but the question would be more to which is more harmful to the environment- and it's not for certain either way.
For some aspects, the electric cars are currently more problematic.
For others the IC engines are- especially with the formulation games the fuel companies are playing of late with Ethanol being added to the mix, etc.
Until you get something like SOFC's or if EEStor or one of the other players like them succeeds in what they're attempting, you might be right. From my perspective, it's something of a push.
Wrong. It does and it doesn't. There's some aspects of the Constitution which apply in full force (with changes in procedure that alter the nature of the BoR's impact on things...) and some things that don't.
For example:
A civil asset seizure, if not properly done under a valid Warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment- just as if it were a criminal one. If the assets so seized are not immediately remanded, it's a Fifth Amendment violation (Unlawful Takings...). Any Civil discovery or Criminal evidence obtained from such a seizure is no longer admissible in court and is typically ordered to be destroyed at the moment of the discovery that the Fourth has been violated.
Testimony not able to be cross-examined prior to a trial or during is generally held to be inadmissible as hearsay per the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. Bank statements are excluded from this holding- but most everything else isn't going to fly.
In a courtroom, you may plead the Fifth in a Civil case, but you have to explicitly take it each and every time you are asked a question- and you can have negative inferences (i.e. it can be at least partly held against you in a decision...) from the Judge or Jury if you DO choose to take that route. And you can't let up once you start, you have to take it from that moment on.
You can't be tried under the Civil code by the the State or Federal government for something and then have it followed up by a Criminal code suit for the same specific violation (double-jeopardy). Though you can have a trial under the Criminal code and then be sued by the family of the deceased/injured in the context of a murder/manslaughter/etc. case as we've seen with the OJ Simpson story. That's allowed because it wasn't specifically the same cause (The state tried for murder, the family sued for damages, etc.).
The First Amendment is typically deemed to trump most every Civil and Criminal statute when applied in the manner it's usually done.
Most of these things apply to State level courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.
In truth, the Civil code's authority stems from the rules set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights affects it as much as the varying Penal codes.
Mate, this horse wouldn't go "voom" if you put four million volts through it! E's bleedin' demised!
No. Kidding.
It leaves one just speechless from the humor, and the profound wisdom of the quote posted.
Depends on what the country's statutes of limitations might be- if there is one, they can only attempt to collect within the timeframe allowed by law. If they can't, they can only get from you what they can collect during that time. If you're broke, they can't really collect, making you effectively what they call "judgment proof" for the duration of your inability to pay and the statute's clock, which begins when you default on it.
For Australia, I think it's something like 6 years for debts of any kind, based on a bit of Internet research on the subject.
Yep. And, in the end, I think we're going to find that he's being charged with infringement, breach of trade secret, tortious interference, or some combo of part or all of the aforementioned before it's all said and done. And, honestly, while I won't call it stealing like some have (it's not), he very definitely needs to face the fines he's got coming to him on this and I've no sympathy for him because it was a willful illegal act all the same.
Was Nintendo deprived of the game completely? No?
Then it was breach of trade secret or infringement that the person that we're discussing is guilty of, not theft. It's neither correct nor insightful to call it stealing- because, sadly, it still isn't that.
You mean like this?
Sounds useful...if it's in your bookstore... Make sure you use cash, though- you're back to the same problem I pointed out if you're using checks, debit, or credit... >:-D
Interesting link. Ironic though that you have to supply information to the site just to get the guide- isn't it a bit of a violation of the rules of the game giving out information to get info on how to become anonymous? (Hey, I thought that all you need to become Anonymous is be lurking around on 4Chan...)
Which is something of a shame... In years long past, they were the go-to guys for hard to find auto parts and tools via mail.
"illegal" is against the law- it doesn't relate to whether you go to jail or not.
Making unauthorized copies of media content is illegal- but depending on the nature, you could just be sued OR go to jail for it. There's tons more things like that on the books.