God, it's so refreshing to read something from someone who has done Economics 101.
Every time I see another pious person attributing some kind of moral superiority to AMD because they price equivlient computing power at lower prices (or some equally naive perception that their manufacturing technical prowess exceeds Intel's and allows them to build a cheaper die) I would laugh - but the joke is so old.
Hey AMD fans....wake up: AMD would dearly love to charge as much (or more) per Mhz, but their brand value, distribution channels and other market factors dictate what they CAN charge for them. They would very happy to "gouge" you like Intel does. Welcome to the free market.
BTW, the P4 will, ultimately, win the price performance battle, even allowing for architecture differences, if only because at some delta, MHz does make a difference and P4 starts in where Althon drops off.
As I understand it, the most secure systems are not public/private keys, they are ones with a large shared secret which is never transmitted digitally. I'm suggesting that I need, at some point to physically interact (eg. pass the a floppy or a dongle) with my really secure correspondents.
Granted, not a practical alternative for most things...
This gadget would encode the key AND xor (or whatever) it with the biomet data.
The idea being that to encrypt you must
-be you
and
-have the key.
If you feared someone just had your retinal data AND had swiped your gadget, you would burn another gadget and inform your correspondents to use the new keyinfo (I like giving them physical copies of private keys).
"Free Luna!" huh? Well, Simon, I guess your guys know how to do that coercive stuff from what you did to the Warden...
Re-establish law and order! Re-install Authority!;-)
Not sure you can "take the 5th" to evade the seizure of physical records (eg. my diary can be taken and if it's got a lock on it, I believe I CAN be compelled to surrender the key to it).
Interesting. This is something like what I was asking about in my later reply ("The Right way to Store Keys") - I assumed you would want bio-metric corroboration to prevent someone from swiping one of your ibuttons (or whatever)
Anyway, is all the support software open source and are all tech specs available for the ibutton?
Everybody should have a little 4k flash dongle with a serial and/or USB interface and some kind of biometric corroborator (little retinal-scan CCD lens you look into?). The whole thing (except for the cable extender) should be a couple co cm long and be carried on their keychain. Your encryption software should ONLY look for your key on your dongle and will only accept it when you're bio validating.
These things should be cheap and write once (for the key itself and the bio-print. Lose it (or want another key) - buy another dongle and create a new key.
Have not though this through in detail, but does that sound practical?
Battlebots are like RC cars and planes, they just move according to a some team jockey twiddling joysticks on a radio remote. A REAL Battlebot would be able to seek out and destroy the other unit WITH NOT HANDLER INTERVENTION.
Yes, this is a serious AI problem involving machive vision, shape recognition, strategy trees etc. - but doable long term. Short term, they should create a special 'brainbot' class (like the weight classes now) that are self managed, ubt give them some assists like an 802.11b - based locator system (mini GPS) in which the units get their own and the opponents actual position in real time. The units would then now where they and the other bot were in respect to the walls and traps and could base their operational rules accordlingly.
A GREAT IDEA: If some enterprising individual wanted to create a reference bot physical platform -THEN create an open source simulator with a good API,/. competitors could build their own AIs and we could pre-compete the soft models ahead of time against each other. The winning software gets to reside on the real unit and compete with other 'Brainbots'. Go "Team/."!
One of the saddest aspects of trademark law, is enforced commercialism.
'Defending' a trademark requires active use in transactions. Bill Watterson, brilliant creator of the award winning Calvin and Hobbes comic strip refused to license the characters - which would have been incredibly marketable - to be used for toys, etc. So, if Bill doesn't want to abuse his intellectual property this way, he can prevent it, right? Well nooooooooo, what we got was obscenities like the Calvinesque pissing kid graphics found on numerous pickup trucks. Why? Because trademark law says if you don't emforce your trademark by using it in trade, you no longer own a trademark. Use it or lose it. You can't create an image and not sell out, because if you don't someone else will sell it out for you.
Interestingly, human personalities can be defended. Tom Waits, who has NEVER participated in any commercial exploitation of his "trademarked" whiskey-voiced bluesy scat voice, sucessfully sued some firm (with a $2M award I believe -sorry can't remember company) for using an Waits imitator in a commercial.
Judge ruled that it infinged a style which Waits owned -and had the right NOT to exploit commercially. Too bad Calvin can't sue...
On your first seven objections, I'll concede your superior knowledge on all the Star Wars trivia. Actually, I shouldn't even give you those since I already warned that the planet name may be misspelled and the you haven't broken my premise that any planet with a Princess and obvious pull in the Senate is probably well populated by Imperial standards. Therefore, your attempt to diminish it's importance is futile. My point was just that in the new SW movie (whatever the hell it's called) would need to kill more than that planet Darth et. al. wasted in the first SW movie (at least).
BTW, if nobody has blown up Coruscant, why does it matter if it probably has more people in it's one continous city than the earth had? If the rebels or somebody else commits this kind of crime in the new movie your point is taken -if not, so what?
On The Beach (a fine nuclear holocaust flick released, no doubt, before you were a zygote) was made in 1960 - I was using the approximate number of people alive THEN on earth*. (Unless you are suggesting I should be counting the people who would not have been born later because their ancestors died prematurely -which is silly). The number alive today is really irrelevant.
Your response is an incredible example of nitpicking facts that have no bearing on the interesting part of the discussion.
*For exact corroboration of my fabulously accurate guess that 1960 world population was about 3 billion, check http://www.ask.com/main/metaanswer.asp?metaEngine= directhit&origin=0&MetaURL=http%3A%2F%2Fask%2Edire cthit%2Ecom%2Ffcgi%2Dbin%2FRedirURL%2Efcg%3Furl%3D http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecensus%2Egov%2Fipc%2Fwww%2Fworl d%2Ehtml%26qry%3DWorld%2BPopulation%2B1960%253F%26 rnk%3D8%26cz%3D8adfc7bd8ea2b4a4%26src%3DDH%5FAsk%5 FSRCH&qCategory=news&metaTopic=World+Population+In formation&ItemOrdinal=7&logQID=C88C81E756BB2C41881 649AE8BD180E1&sv=0&back=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eask%2Ec om%2Fmain%2FaskJeeves%2Easp%3Forigin%3D0%26qSource %3D4%26site%5Fname%3DJeeves%26metasearch%3Dyes%26a ds%3D%26ask%3DWorld%2BPopulation%2B1960%253F
Well, in the 1st movie, Alderan (hope that's spelled right), a major center of the Empire (home planet to the princess) is destroyed as well as a Death Star, so unless the new movie blows up a more key planet (the Emperial homeworld) it's unlikely that it will kill more enities.;-)
BTW, unless these planets have a greater pop density than 20th century earth, (surely not, if they had the option of off-planet migration) any end-of-the-world genre movies like On the Beach killed off 3 billion or so, and should be worthy of consideration
Sorry, I think there's maybe a couple of hundred competent coders who would buy it just to hack it. About equivalent to the weekly sale in one southern WalMart.
While I think those who can should do so (and I hope you find a very tractable hole in the anti-burn tech), I'd hope the mainstream population would boycott this particular disk ("we wont give up our right to backup", etc) to express the outrage of the cd-burner userbase to the record companies. Perhaps we can spread the ugly rumor that the anti-burn stuff creates unhealthy but subliminal sub-sonic audio inducements to buy CDs which (with a little sensationalist media coverage) will scare the general public away from listening to it (and radio stations from playing it). Comment?
The ethernet Layer 1 technology that will deliver it to your house would probably be 100FX (100Mb over fibre or 10FL (10Mb over fibre). Unless you less than 100 Mb from the distribution point UTP (unshielded twisted pair) won't work and needs to be better protected (conduits, etc) than mulitmode fibre which, at FDX, could be 2km from the distribution point.
When I read the/. first page synopsis, my first thought was "How and why could the RIAA screw the lyricists without trying to screw the composers of the music too?".
The answer is they are trying to screw both. Which means someone should explain to the poster that published music rights are for the lyrics AND the music.
Can't understand why lyrics were singled out...
I was concerned about this too, but the evolution example is a good counter. There is usually a 'prevailing theory' in science at any given time and it would be a useful baseline for any judge/jury to know at least what the mainsteam scientific community thinks is a valid point-of-view. I'm not sure this should be characterized as having an "Agenda", since they are not trying to persuade to persue a goal, but simply articulate the current thinking on a subject.
If Fox thinks it's lost a some viewing audience perminently because of irresponsible programming, perhaps they'll put up a retraction. (Certainly I wouldn't want to be (if there is such a thing) the science reporter on the Fox News Network. I'm sure they'll get great cooperation from NASA on the future flights.)Even better, let's find out who the advertisers were for this show and REALLY punish THEM. Democracy in action...
As has been said many times before, always remind your semi-digital, but public-spirited friends concerned with encrypting terrorists that Criminals of any kind use the same bathrooms and the ALL of rest of the infrastructure (Roads&Phones&Water&Electric&Mail etc.) that we we do, but no one suggests shutting those things down or severely impairing their usefulness because bad people use ordinary things for bad reasons.Helping create a fascist and paranoid state in response to terrorism polarizes the population -which is as important a goal for terrorists as terror is.
Since you're comparing your "7.1" "version" of Linux to BSD 4.2 and Linux 2.4 which are OS/kernel distriutions, I assume you've made several major revs of the kernel all by yourself.
Have you told Linus? (Surely you're not embarassing yourself by confusing distribution revs and kernels...)
Actually I thought the cinqular wireless ad with the disabled painter was interesting.
Still not clear on why cinqular expects to be associated with creativity.
The real question is:
If my old cell phone was not "wireless", where were it's wires?
Silly name....
If "Open Hardware" is defined as "Any platform for which no single component is available only from one vendor", the only current platform that meets this criteria are x86 boxes. (OSes, CPUs, BIOS/mobos, RAM, drives, etc, available from multiple sources/vendors).
Since you can't build an OS/X box without buying stuff from Apple, it doesn't run on "Open Hardware". (You might be able to make a PPC box that means the "Open Hardware" definition, but I don't believe it could run OS/X)
I can't support any OS that doesn't run on "Open Hardware". Linux runs on virtually everything. OS/X is just another example of Apple insisting that all primary hardware must be bought from them. If you take Apple's position to it's logical conclusion there should be only ONE computer company. This is somewhat like the old (pre 90s) IBM attitude, except that Apple has not been successful enough to wind up in anti-trust court.
Slashdot Mirror
Try ftp://ftp.webtrek.com/pub/mirrors/redhat/linux/7.1 /en/iso/i386/
Ditto. As of 10:57EDT, no 7.1 dir.
God, it's so refreshing to read something from someone who has done Economics 101. Every time I see another pious person attributing some kind of moral superiority to AMD because they price equivlient computing power at lower prices (or some equally naive perception that their manufacturing technical prowess exceeds Intel's and allows them to build a cheaper die) I would laugh - but the joke is so old.
Hey AMD fans....wake up: AMD would dearly love to charge as much (or more) per Mhz, but their brand value, distribution channels and other market factors dictate what they CAN charge for them. They would very happy to "gouge" you like Intel does. Welcome to the free market.
BTW, the P4 will, ultimately, win the price performance battle, even allowing for architecture differences, if only because at some delta, MHz does make a difference and P4 starts in where Althon drops off.
As I understand it, the most secure systems are not public/private keys, they are ones with a large shared secret which is never transmitted digitally. I'm suggesting that I need, at some point to physically interact (eg. pass the a floppy or a dongle) with my really secure correspondents. Granted, not a practical alternative for most things...
This gadget would encode the key AND xor (or whatever) it with the biomet data. The idea being that to encrypt you must -be you and -have the key. If you feared someone just had your retinal data AND had swiped your gadget, you would burn another gadget and inform your correspondents to use the new keyinfo (I like giving them physical copies of private keys).
"Free Luna!" huh? Well, Simon, I guess your guys know how to do that coercive stuff from what you did to the Warden... Re-establish law and order! Re-install Authority! ;-)
Not sure you can "take the 5th" to evade the seizure of physical records (eg. my diary can be taken and if it's got a lock on it, I believe I CAN be compelled to surrender the key to it).
Interesting. This is something like what I was asking about in my later reply ("The Right way to Store Keys") - I assumed you would want bio-metric corroboration to prevent someone from swiping one of your ibuttons (or whatever) Anyway, is all the support software open source and are all tech specs available for the ibutton?
Everybody should have a little 4k flash dongle with a serial and/or USB interface and some kind of biometric corroborator (little retinal-scan CCD lens you look into?). The whole thing (except for the cable extender) should be a couple co cm long and be carried on their keychain. Your encryption software should ONLY look for your key on your dongle and will only accept it when you're bio validating. These things should be cheap and write once (for the key itself and the bio-print. Lose it (or want another key) - buy another dongle and create a new key. Have not though this through in detail, but does that sound practical?
Battlebots are like RC cars and planes, they just move according to a some team jockey twiddling joysticks on a radio remote. A REAL Battlebot would be able to seek out and destroy the other unit WITH NOT HANDLER INTERVENTION.
/. competitors could build their own AIs and we could pre-compete the soft models ahead of time against each other. The winning software gets to reside on the real unit and compete with other 'Brainbots'. Go "Team /."!
Yes, this is a serious AI problem involving machive vision, shape recognition, strategy trees etc. - but doable long term. Short term, they should create a special 'brainbot' class (like the weight classes now) that are self managed, ubt give them some assists like an 802.11b - based locator system (mini GPS) in which the units get their own and the opponents actual position in real time. The units would then now where they and the other bot were in respect to the walls and traps and could base their operational rules accordlingly.
A GREAT IDEA: If some enterprising individual wanted to create a reference bot physical platform -THEN create an open source simulator with a good API,
Indeed. Not his only error. See my post above: "You're right about all the wrong things" (Sorry I missed that one, though, thanks)
One of the saddest aspects of trademark law, is enforced commercialism.
'Defending' a trademark requires active use in transactions. Bill Watterson, brilliant creator of the award winning Calvin and Hobbes comic strip refused to license the characters - which would have been incredibly marketable - to be used for toys, etc. So, if Bill doesn't want to abuse his intellectual property this way, he can prevent it, right? Well nooooooooo, what we got was obscenities like the Calvinesque pissing kid graphics found on numerous pickup trucks. Why? Because trademark law says if you don't emforce your trademark by using it in trade, you no longer own a trademark. Use it or lose it. You can't create an image and not sell out, because if you don't someone else will sell it out for you.
Interestingly, human personalities can be defended. Tom Waits, who has NEVER participated in any commercial exploitation of his "trademarked" whiskey-voiced bluesy scat voice, sucessfully sued some firm (with a $2M award I believe -sorry can't remember company) for using an Waits imitator in a commercial. Judge ruled that it infinged a style which Waits owned -and had the right NOT to exploit commercially. Too bad Calvin can't sue...
On your first seven objections, I'll concede your superior knowledge on all the Star Wars trivia. Actually, I shouldn't even give you those since I already warned that the planet name may be misspelled and the you haven't broken my premise that any planet with a Princess and obvious pull in the Senate is probably well populated by Imperial standards. Therefore, your attempt to diminish it's importance is futile. My point was just that in the new SW movie (whatever the hell it's called) would need to kill more than that planet Darth et. al. wasted in the first SW movie (at least).
= directhit&origin=0&MetaURL=http%3A%2F%2Fask%2Edire cthit%2Ecom%2Ffcgi%2Dbin%2FRedirURL%2Efcg%3Furl%3D http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecensus%2Egov%2Fipc%2Fwww%2Fworl d%2Ehtml%26qry%3DWorld%2BPopulation%2B1960%253F%26 rnk%3D8%26cz%3D8adfc7bd8ea2b4a4%26src%3DDH%5FAsk%5 FSRCH&qCategory=news&metaTopic=World+Population+In formation&ItemOrdinal=7&logQID=C88C81E756BB2C41881 649AE8BD180E1&sv=0&back=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eask%2Ec om%2Fmain%2FaskJeeves%2Easp%3Forigin%3D0%26qSource %3D4%26site%5Fname%3DJeeves%26metasearch%3Dyes%26a ds%3D%26ask%3DWorld%2BPopulation%2B1960%253F
;-)
BTW, if nobody has blown up Coruscant, why does it matter if it probably has more people in it's one continous city than the earth had? If the rebels or somebody else commits this kind of crime in the new movie your point is taken -if not, so what?
On The Beach (a fine nuclear holocaust flick released, no doubt, before you were a zygote) was made in 1960 - I was using the approximate number of people alive THEN on earth*. (Unless you are suggesting I should be counting the people who would not have been born later because their ancestors died prematurely -which is silly). The number alive today is really irrelevant.
Your response is an incredible example of nitpicking facts that have no bearing on the interesting part of the discussion.
*For exact corroboration of my fabulously accurate guess that 1960 world population was about 3 billion, check
http://www.ask.com/main/metaanswer.asp?metaEngine
Just the important facts
Well, in the 1st movie, Alderan (hope that's spelled right), a major center of the Empire (home planet to the princess) is destroyed as well as a Death Star, so unless the new movie blows up a more key planet (the Emperial homeworld) it's unlikely that it will kill more enities. ;-)
BTW, unless these planets have a greater pop density than 20th century earth, (surely not, if they had the option of off-planet migration) any end-of-the-world genre movies like On the Beach killed off 3 billion or so, and should be worthy of consideration
Sorry, I think there's maybe a couple of hundred competent coders who would buy it just to hack it. About equivalent to the weekly sale in one southern WalMart.
While I think those who can should do so (and I hope you find a very tractable hole in the anti-burn tech), I'd hope the mainstream population would boycott this particular disk ("we wont give up our right to backup", etc) to express the outrage of the cd-burner userbase to the record companies. Perhaps we can spread the ugly rumor that the anti-burn stuff creates unhealthy but subliminal sub-sonic audio inducements to buy CDs which (with a little sensationalist media coverage) will scare the general public away from listening to it (and radio stations from playing it). Comment?
The ethernet Layer 1 technology that will deliver it to your house would probably be 100FX (100Mb over fibre or 10FL (10Mb over fibre). Unless you less than 100 Mb from the distribution point UTP (unshielded twisted pair) won't work and needs to be better protected (conduits, etc) than mulitmode fibre which, at FDX, could be 2km from the distribution point.
When I read the /. first page synopsis, my first thought was "How and why could the RIAA screw the lyricists without trying to screw the composers of the music too?".
The answer is they are trying to screw both. Which means someone should explain to the poster that published music rights are for the lyrics AND the music.
Can't understand why lyrics were singled out...
I was concerned about this too, but the evolution example is a good counter. There is usually a 'prevailing theory' in science at any given time and it would be a useful baseline for any judge/jury to know at least what the mainsteam scientific community thinks is a valid point-of-view. I'm not sure this should be characterized as having an "Agenda", since they are not trying to persuade to persue a goal, but simply articulate the current thinking on a subject.
If Fox thinks it's lost a some viewing audience perminently because of irresponsible programming, perhaps they'll put up a retraction.
(Certainly I wouldn't want to be (if there is such a thing) the science reporter on the Fox News Network. I'm sure they'll get great cooperation from NASA on the future flights.) Even better, let's find out who the advertisers were for this show and REALLY punish THEM. Democracy in action...
I hope someone mails the whole /. thread back to the committee.
As has been said many times before, always remind your semi-digital, but public-spirited friends concerned with encrypting terrorists that Criminals of any kind use the same bathrooms and the ALL of rest of the infrastructure (Roads&Phones&Water&Electric&Mail etc.) that we we do, but no one suggests shutting those things down or severely impairing their usefulness because bad people use ordinary things for bad reasons. Helping create a fascist and paranoid state in response to terrorism polarizes the population -which is as important a goal for terrorists as terror is.
Tell eBay about how Sun boxes get the job done.
Since you're comparing your "7.1" "version" of Linux to BSD 4.2 and Linux 2.4 which are OS/kernel distriutions, I assume you've made several major revs of the kernel all by yourself. Have you told Linus? (Surely you're not embarassing yourself by confusing distribution revs and kernels...)
Actually I thought the cinqular wireless ad with the disabled painter was interesting. Still not clear on why cinqular expects to be associated with creativity. The real question is: If my old cell phone was not "wireless", where were it's wires? Silly name....
If "Open Hardware" is defined as "Any platform for which no single component is available only from one vendor", the only current platform that meets this criteria are x86 boxes. (OSes, CPUs, BIOS/mobos, RAM, drives, etc, available from multiple sources/vendors). Since you can't build an OS/X box without buying stuff from Apple, it doesn't run on "Open Hardware". (You might be able to make a PPC box that means the "Open Hardware" definition, but I don't believe it could run OS/X)
I can't support any OS that doesn't run on "Open Hardware". Linux runs on virtually everything. OS/X is just another example of Apple insisting that all primary hardware must be bought from them. If you take Apple's position to it's logical conclusion there should be only ONE computer company. This is somewhat like the old (pre 90s) IBM attitude, except that Apple has not been successful enough to wind up in anti-trust court.