If Boston doesn't have room for a monorail, then it certainly doesn't have room for conventional rail. Your arguement is like saying swimming pools are stupid because you don't have room for one in your apartment.
Because it doesn't disturb the right-of-way nearly as much as light rail, and is way cheaper to build. All you need are spots for the posts, not the whole damn roadway. In Seattle, the Monorail runs right down 5th Avenue, and cars drive under it no problem. You could run a monorail down the median of just about any freeway with hardly any adverse effects during or after construction.
There's a reason why this is being sponsored by a citizen's initiative while light rail and commuter rail have been driven by your municipal and county governments.
Oh, it's very easy. My wife got a similar letter from Verisign; someone stole her identity last year and signed up for several domain addresses.
We naturally checked out the domain and it's unused -- probably because the initial payment to Verisign bounced (we had to cancel all our credit cards and start over) -- but Verisign's still trying to get us to pay for a renewal! Gotta love their optimism; too bad we can't get 'em arrested for fraud, but then I guess Verisign itself has technically done nothing wrong here, just tried to perpetuate someone else's fraud.
How secure is Brilliant's Altnet? How hard would it be for someone to hack Altnet and turn all of Brilliant's installed base into a zombie DDoS machine?
I don't think you get it. The idea is not so much to encrypt movies sent to consumers but rather to encrypt movies sent to theaters. If someone intercepts the data stream for the latest movie their copy will only play at the target theater, so pirate DVDs of that data stream will be worthless. Once the film is in general release this system won't mean much. In other words, this won't replace CBDTPA.
They [business, FTC, Republicans, whoever] want all the other lists opt-out (you're on the list unless you specifically opt out of the list), so why not this one?
Put every possible phone number [(000)000-0000 to (999)999-9999] on the list and make people opt-out of it annualy (because phone numbers can be re-assigned).
Yeah, that'll be the day pigs fly out my butt, too (chasing the monkeys that flew out when they put restrictions on what info banks can share).
Oh Puleeze. Isn't it obvious? These spacecraft are not accelerating toward the sun, the Universe (and thus the Solar System) is expanding past them. Sheese.
Privacy and networking are not opposing forces. The drive to network led us to invent the postal service, and that came with privacy from day one. The analogy is simple: email is a postcard; encrypted email is a letter in an envelope. Even if most people will never read your emails, just as most people will never read your postcards, it is quite possible for your ISP (and many others you don't know) to read your emails, just as it's possible for everyone at the post office to read postcards.
Most people pay bills by mail without a second thought, but they would never pay bills by email. Perhaps that will change with univerally accepted encryption. The question is how to get there from here, and "one person at a time" is as good a way as any.
Other way around
on
30-pin SIMMs
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I eagerly clicked on this story, hoping that it offered some cool geek solution to the problem of what to do with all these damn 30 pin SIMMs! But no, just someone who actually wants more of them!
Re:Mmmm.. FUN! And a legal nightmare..
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
Are different people handling the hardware and the software installations?
No. We get the hardware with the software installed, and the same techs come around to load any new software you need. If the hardware came with disks, the memo said that we are not to load anything off those disks. (so why do they give us the disks?)
As an aside most suppliers wouldn't understand the concept of send hardware to address A, software to address B and licence certificates to address C even if you asked them to...
I've worked at Fortune 500 companies who might demand exactly that. Of course, they wouldn't do business with anyone who wouldn't understand that concept. One even sent (sends?) surplus monitors back to Dell (from their Surplus department) so that Dell could box them up and send them back with the next batch of new PCs (to another department). Why couldn't the Surplus folks send the monitors directly to that other department? Because the folks who process new PCs only deal with CPUs and monitors as a set; they aren't equiped to deal with CPUs from one place and monitors from another. That's the reality in Big Business.
Helps explain why some people believe startups can make money in ways established players can't, and were willing to finance the dot-com bubble.
For us, that $2,000 or so was a sort of investment.
I can't for the life of me consider spending anything on a new computer an "investment". A purchase, sure, but not an investment. The original Apple 1 turned out to be an investment, but certainly didn't look like one at the time.
The proposition was basically that I gave Apple an extra $600 to promise me that managing my MP3s and movies and pictures and whatever else would be as simple and foolproof as humanly possible. So far, they've kept up their end of the bargain.
As long as Bill Hayden doesn't call this AtheOS, why should Kurt care? Did Kurt even bother to trademark AtheOS to prevent that? If not, Bill is even free to call his new creation AtheOS, although I doubt he would in any event -- why would he want anyone to confuse his creation with Kurt's? (note that he can't call it Linux, even though he uses the Linux kernel -- that name is trademarked)
The only thing Kurt has to fear is that Bill's fork is so much better that all the people working on AtheOS shift to it. If that happens, then it should happen; if AtheOS is good enough, it won't happen.
This is what the GPL is for; if you don't like it, use another license.
Yeah, I suppose the circle of people for whom $2000 is pocket change is pretty little.
Re:Mmmm.. FUN! And a legal nightmare..
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 3
Everywhere I've worked the policy has been that employees are not allowed to load anything, or what they can load is limited to stuff available at some corporate web site. Two days ago we got an email warning us not to load software that comes with our hardware if it was not loaded by the techs (why they don't just keep the disks if they don't want us loading the software is beyond me, but there you go). If we need anything we're supposed to order it via the proper channels and have it installed by the techs. Period.
Having been on the other side of the problem (trying to maintain a few thousand PCs) I can see the need to control what's loaded. If something breaks the cause could be just about anything, and the last thing you need is to find rogue software the user loaded, even if it's legal and won't get them in trouble with the PC police. Maybe it wasn't the rogue software, maybe it was. Maybe unloading it to check will just make the problem worse. It's a headache the techs don't need.
Bottom line: it's their computer, they make the rules. And here one rule is users don't load any software. Another rule is you can be fired for breaking the rules.
Re:Mmmm.. FUN! And a legal nightmare..
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
Okay, this is your employer's computer. You purchase a piece of software that is supposed to detect snooping software hiding out on their machine. Said snooping software destroys your anti-snooper, interfering with its proper operation and generally depriving you of its service that you have paid for.
Well, then it is fundamentally flawed (but we all knew that, right?), because it won't promote broadband. I'm the target demo for broadband, damnit, and I'll probably never buy an HDTV. Why? Because the broadcasters and the cable companies and the hardware makers and the content providers can't or won't agree on a format. It's not just piracy. The broadcasters want to charge the cable companies for a digital feed, so my cable company has no plans to offer it, so why should I buy hardware for it? The FCC wants the cable companies to continue to provide the analog feed for legacy subscribers while they tell the broadcasters they can drop the analog feed once they move to digital -- how is that supposed to work? HDTV means about a half-dozen things depending on who you talk to, so if you buy a brand X TV it probably won't work with your brand Y VCR and at least one of the broadcasters in your area, and Lord help you if you move into another market. And to top it all off, the FCC gave all the broadcasters a FRIGGIN FREE HDTV license then told them it's OK if they use it to broadcast multiple low-res programs instead of broadcasting HDTV.
As a consumer, why the hell should I buy into this mess just because Holling's eased Disney's fears that I'll make a copy of Fantasia 2005 for myself rather than pay them $5 each time I want to view it? What makes Disney think I'll pay-per-view forever when I used to (circa 2002) be able to buy it once and view it as often as I please? What makes Sony et.al. think I'll pay thousands of dollars to buy hardware that enables this piracy? The MPAA and RIAA are the real pirates in this story, not me.
Solving the "piracy" problem -- even if they could -- will not promote broadband under the current conditions, and that's what my letters to my Senators say.
You've obviously never patched binary code where you didn't have the source. I've had to do that, and yes I had an assembler at the time. Had a disassembler, too:-)
I'm pretty sure what you call microcode he calls machine language; what you call machine code is BASIC -- that is, a human language that another program can interpret and run, not a machine language that runs on its own. Indeed, your BASIC program does not do what you think it does; the values in the DATA statement are the same program as the assembler example you give, but the BASIC program you say is "identical" is mearly the loader -- a loader that needs an interpreter to work! Your example is twice removed from machine code.
That's what you get when people who don't know computers are told to teach computing.
The first question to ask is "What are the course objectives?" Clearly, this course had no real-world objectives, so the test was meaningless. Nobody who actually uses Word or Excell for a living would know the answers to these questions (I use these apps for a living and couldn't answer your example questions). Whoever created that test and doesn't deserve to teach.
To the original poster's question: Again, what are the course objectives? Are you trying to teach them how to use computers to help with their homework (i.e., how to use Word and Excel)? Computer basics (i.e., ones and zeros, boolian logic, how a disk drive works, etc.)? Programming (LOGO, BASIC, flowcharting, basic problem solving)? What you're trying to teach will drive how to tell if they already know it.
But the unfortunately side effect is that this legislation gives wide sweeping powers to a single orginization. And unfortunately, that group stands to make lots of money by restricting the DRM to a small subset of manufacturers and charging handsomely for it.
Hardware manufacturers, yes.
Microsoft can easily afford to give millions of dollars a year for the right to control DRM for their software. Linux won't be able to keep suit, and even if they do, it will involve closed source software (because nobody wants to pay out the ass for the DRM information and then turn around and give it to free - not to mention the ineveidable NDAs and other bullshit).
You missed my point. Yes, the DRM stuff will cost millions -- but Microsoft won't pay it; whoever makes the hardware will pay it. Ultimately, the consumer will pay it in the form of DVD drives, video cards, etc. that cost $X more. But once that hardware has the DRM chip any software can use it -- free! Because the DRM is in the hardware, the software can't get around it, so there's no danger in "allowing" Linux to use the hardware, and every reason to sell to all market segments. The hardware makers will indeed have paid millions for the DRM rights, and they'll want to maximize sales to recoop those costs. I believe the provisions for "open source" in the bill are driectly to prevent Microsoft from strong-arming the hardware makers into excluding Linux.
Under this bill software is just a consumer of the DRM hardware, not an enabler of DRM itself.
Here in America you do win elections by gaining the most votes, but those votes are not free. You have to spend money for television and radio ads where you tell the voters why they should vote for you. Oh, wait, forget that -- that's what they teach us in school.
You have to spend money for television and radio ads where you tell the voters why they should NOT vote for your opponent (you know, because he's a baby killer or because he sells crack to school kids or because he personally taught the terrorists how to fly).
Anyway, those ads cost money, and Sen. Hollings gets his from Disney. Nothing illegal about that (today), but guess what happens when Michael Eisner tells him that the people who voted for him are all theves who should be prohibited from taping TV shows? SSSCA/CBDTPA is what happens! When Di$ney talks, Holling$ listens.
Send $100 now and make it clear there's more where that came from if they represent your interests. Each time they vote your way (in subcommittee, in committee, in procedural maneuvers, etc.) immediately send another $100 along with a copy of the original letter and a "Thank You!" added to the bottom.
Would proprietary hardware schemes built into motherboard or video card chipsets necessarily be out of reach of open source projects such as Linux? Couldn't a video card using a proprietary DRM chip publish the API needed to use the chip without revealing the secrets of how the chip worked (to prevent knock-offs of the video card)? Or are you assuming there would be a way to tell the chip to ignore the DRM codes and play pirated material anyway, thus they wouldn't reveal the APIs?
I'm sure some manufacturer out there would want the Linux/*BSD market enough to build stuff that enabled open software to use the device as the law intended while preventing illegal use. If only one did it, they'd capture 100% of that market! As I see it, they want DRM built into the DVD-RW drives, not Windows, just so they can prevent software (like Linux) from getting around DRM the way DeCSS does.
Slashdot Mirror
We naturally checked out the domain and it's unused -- probably because the initial payment to Verisign bounced (we had to cancel all our credit cards and start over) -- but Verisign's still trying to get us to pay for a renewal! Gotta love their optimism; too bad we can't get 'em arrested for fraud, but then I guess Verisign itself has technically done nothing wrong here, just tried to perpetuate someone else's fraud.
Brilliant!
What got my attention was the idea that they could tap my computer to steal my encryption key, but still couldn't read my plans to take over the world at their office. They can only be read at my office.
Put every possible phone number [(000)000-0000 to (999)999-9999] on the list and make people opt-out of it annualy (because phone numbers can be re-assigned).
Yeah, that'll be the day pigs fly out my butt, too (chasing the monkeys that flew out when they put restrictions on what info banks can share).
Oh Puleeze. Isn't it obvious? These spacecraft are not accelerating toward the sun, the Universe (and thus the Solar System) is expanding past them. Sheese.
What was that you said about hats?
Most people pay bills by mail without a second thought, but they would never pay bills by email. Perhaps that will change with univerally accepted encryption. The question is how to get there from here, and "one person at a time" is as good a way as any.
So, does anyone have a cool project that can use these things? Maybe a programmable robot made from an old disk drive or a homebuilt one of these?
No. We get the hardware with the software installed, and the same techs come around to load any new software you need. If the hardware came with disks, the memo said that we are not to load anything off those disks. (so why do they give us the disks?)I've worked at Fortune 500 companies who might demand exactly that. Of course, they wouldn't do business with anyone who wouldn't understand that concept. One even sent (sends?) surplus monitors back to Dell (from their Surplus department) so that Dell could box them up and send them back with the next batch of new PCs (to another department). Why couldn't the Surplus folks send the monitors directly to that other department? Because the folks who process new PCs only deal with CPUs and monitors as a set; they aren't equiped to deal with CPUs from one place and monitors from another. That's the reality in Big Business.
Helps explain why some people believe startups can make money in ways established players can't, and were willing to finance the dot-com bubble.
The only thing Kurt has to fear is that Bill's fork is so much better that all the people working on AtheOS shift to it. If that happens, then it should happen; if AtheOS is good enough, it won't happen.
This is what the GPL is for; if you don't like it, use another license.
Yeah, I suppose the circle of people for whom $2000 is pocket change is pretty little.
Having been on the other side of the problem (trying to maintain a few thousand PCs) I can see the need to control what's loaded. If something breaks the cause could be just about anything, and the last thing you need is to find rogue software the user loaded, even if it's legal and won't get them in trouble with the PC police. Maybe it wasn't the rogue software, maybe it was. Maybe unloading it to check will just make the problem worse. It's a headache the techs don't need.
Bottom line: it's their computer, they make the rules. And here one rule is users don't load any software. Another rule is you can be fired for breaking the rules.
Shouldn't you be fired?
As a consumer, why the hell should I buy into this mess just because Holling's eased Disney's fears that I'll make a copy of Fantasia 2005 for myself rather than pay them $5 each time I want to view it? What makes Disney think I'll pay-per-view forever when I used to (circa 2002) be able to buy it once and view it as often as I please? What makes Sony et.al. think I'll pay thousands of dollars to buy hardware that enables this piracy? The MPAA and RIAA are the real pirates in this story, not me.
Solving the "piracy" problem -- even if they could -- will not promote broadband under the current conditions, and that's what my letters to my Senators say.
I'm pretty sure what you call microcode he calls machine language; what you call machine code is BASIC -- that is, a human language that another program can interpret and run, not a machine language that runs on its own. Indeed, your BASIC program does not do what you think it does; the values in the DATA statement are the same program as the assembler example you give, but the BASIC program you say is "identical" is mearly the loader -- a loader that needs an interpreter to work! Your example is twice removed from machine code.
The first question to ask is "What are the course objectives?" Clearly, this course had no real-world objectives, so the test was meaningless. Nobody who actually uses Word or Excell for a living would know the answers to these questions (I use these apps for a living and couldn't answer your example questions). Whoever created that test and doesn't deserve to teach.
To the original poster's question: Again, what are the course objectives? Are you trying to teach them how to use computers to help with their homework (i.e., how to use Word and Excel)? Computer basics (i.e., ones and zeros, boolian logic, how a disk drive works, etc.)? Programming (LOGO, BASIC, flowcharting, basic problem solving)? What you're trying to teach will drive how to tell if they already know it.
Under this bill software is just a consumer of the DRM hardware, not an enabler of DRM itself.
You have to spend money for television and radio ads where you tell the voters why they should NOT vote for your opponent (you know, because he's a baby killer or because he sells crack to school kids or because he personally taught the terrorists how to fly).
Anyway, those ads cost money, and Sen. Hollings gets his from Disney. Nothing illegal about that (today), but guess what happens when Michael Eisner tells him that the people who voted for him are all theves who should be prohibited from taping TV shows? SSSCA/CBDTPA is what happens! When Di$ney talks, Holling$ listens.
Send $100 now and make it clear there's more where that came from if they represent your interests. Each time they vote your way (in subcommittee, in committee, in procedural maneuvers, etc.) immediately send another $100 along with a copy of the original letter and a "Thank You!" added to the bottom.
Would proprietary hardware schemes built into motherboard or video card chipsets necessarily be out of reach of open source projects such as Linux? Couldn't a video card using a proprietary DRM chip publish the API needed to use the chip without revealing the secrets of how the chip worked (to prevent knock-offs of the video card)? Or are you assuming there would be a way to tell the chip to ignore the DRM codes and play pirated material anyway, thus they wouldn't reveal the APIs?
I'm sure some manufacturer out there would want the Linux/*BSD market enough to build stuff that enabled open software to use the device as the law intended while preventing illegal use. If only one did it, they'd capture 100% of that market! As I see it, they want DRM built into the DVD-RW drives, not Windows, just so they can prevent software (like Linux) from getting around DRM the way DeCSS does.