Chivalry? I suppose that the answer to your first question is that the soldier is doing their job, the civilians are minding their own business. But then, at least on one side, some of the civilians tried to start the war (in most cases). But I agree completely, there's not much of a difference, dead is dead.
Since this is another article about the rules of war, it's still a teeny bit on-topic. What's with the big peacenik/dove stance here at Slashdot, yet the vast appreciation for Doom, Quake, HalfLife, etc? Strikes me as a bit hypocritical. War is a nasty, ugly, messy, terrible thing, but sometimes it's needed. WWII, for instance. Or any number of "we're not your colony anymore" wars in Africa, South America, etc. I don't mean that every war is good, or that there is really such a thing as a good war, just that sometimes, when someone gets a little oppresive and power hungry, the only resort is violence. Sure, pacifistic resistance can work, but not in every case. Ditto diplomacy. I think that's something that we as a species need to come to grips with, esp. if we play at war (again, Quake, Doom, Starcraft, etc). Sure, we can have the idealized solution - put the world leaders in a [insert idealized solution here, like footrace/boxing ring/Q3DM] and whoever wins, wins. But what if they cheat? That's all.
itachi, who thinks that a little gibbing is a lot better than a real war any day.
Provide some examples. Again, it is a far more efficient use of resources for there to be a single natural monopoly, or at the very least, a single owner of infrastructure that leases use of the infrastructure to it's competition, but that requires govt. regulations. So we get back to the situation we are at today. I would maintain that there are situations where it really is a natural monopoly. Look at gas utilities. How feasible is it for one utility to build infrastructure for gas feed and then share it with others?
No, the market does nothing to monoploies. It can't, because by definition, a monopoly has monopoly power. By definition, monopoly power keeps a firm in a dominant role by way of the machanisms of the market. If a firm naturally loses dominance of the market, it wasn't a monopoly. Monopoly power includes the high cost of entry, making it prohibitive for other firms to enter the market, and the ability to dump goods below cost to drive other firms out of the market. You mention that quality of service and price can only be determined by the market. This is true, after a fashion. However, in a monopoly situation, QOS falls, price rises, and quantity available falls. In a natural monoploy, the govt. assigns quotas to prevent the firm from exercising it's monopoly power. Again, look at local utilities. Call up your gas co. and ask them if they set the rates completely independantly, or if there are locl govt. regulations on rates. You are correct about telcos, they are not as much of a natural monoploy anymore. I should have been more specific - local landlines are a natural monopoly. Now you can choose to go all cellular if you don't like the local landline provider, however, the cost of cellular does still restrict who can consume that market - local landlines are still much cheaper, at least in the US. Finally, it is expected that the govt should hand off some monopolies - they have few other reasonable choices when it comes to natural monopolies. This is where regulation comes into play. One of the solutions that the authors imply is that AT&T should only be allowed to combine ISP and infrastructure and build this monopoly if they are regulated by the govt. until they are willing to open the infrastructure to other ISPs. This is exactly what i was arguing in my previous post, and it seems to be what you are looking for.
itachi
as always, feel free to email me and tell me I'm wrong...
There is a difference between stupid, un-needed regulation that screws with the way the market works and regulation that prevents a compnay from becoming a natural monopoly. The authors are suggesting that the FCC maintain competition and nothing more.
Businesses such as telco, gas, electric, etc are called natural monopolies, because it is inefficient and stupid for competing firms to lay redundant power/gas/telco lines through an area. Think about it - five different gas pipelines running under a given street, all maintained by different people. One day, there's a leak. You call all five, and they each say there's no trouble on their line, must be the other utility. Or phone poles with lines for all 43 local telcos? The way that natural monopolies are dealt with in free market economies is heavy govt. regulations or govt ownership. Look at your local utility companies, if you live in such a nation. The only way around natural monoploies that makes sense is requiring companies to lease out infrastructure for a fair price. So let's get some examples: *Montgomery County, MD gas utility - (DC suburbs) gas is provided by one utility. There is no competition. However, the local govt. has pricing and quality of service restrictions on the utility to ensure that the monopoly power that they have granted the utility isn't abused. *Cell Phones - Cell companies build cell infrastructure, and that isn't a natural monopoly. However, most local telcos are, so when you make a call on a cell phone to a local landline, what's happening is that the cell co. uses up some bandwidth that it has leased from the local telco. (this is assuming that the local telco is a natural monopoly) *Long distance telco - no monoplies anymore, but the flexible infrastructure is very important and used in the same manner. Joe Bob and Peggy Sue start their lond distance service, but have no infrastructure. They lease a portion of some AT&T lines. AT&T wants to oversubscribe the lines, so it's in their interest, Joe Bob and Peggy Sue get some infrastructure space, and there's another long distance provider trying to bring lower prices to the market than its competition.
The reason these professors are rightly concerned is very clear. I would suggest that anyone who doesn't get their point should re-read the article, the whole way through. If one company controls the infrastructure, has no competiton, and goes unregulated, the consumer gets screwed. The FCC should NEVER hand a firm unregulated monoploy power. Would anyone here suggest that MS should have been handed its monoploy power by an agency of the federal govt?
No, it was a moderate success. After all, the Japanese fleet failed to sink any of the US PacFleet carriers. This, in turn, led to US victory at Midway, and eventually, the war (arguably). One of the major Japanese goals with Pearl Harbor was to nail the US carrier fleet. In that regard, the attack failed.
Okay, having studies economics for far too long, I have to point out that there is no such thing as a good or harmless monopoly. The only cases where a monopoly can be justified is a natural monopoly, and those are either run by the govt or heavily regulated (see your local telco provider, water company, electric provider) Even natural monpolies are starting to fall by the wayside. If you look at an open market, a market where one company has monopoly power, and a one compnay monopoly market, there's only one where the consumer isn't getting screwed. Hint: it's not the last two.
itachi ps - feel free to email me and ask for much more detailed explanations....
It is impossible for a corporation with monopoly power to _not_ harm consumers. Fun economics tidbit of the day. So if they are a monopoly, they hurt everyone who used/uses an x86 based computer.
or should the guy who built that Millenium Falcon be working for LEGO? I mean, wow. Like wow. Really wow. I've only recently quit being the LEGO version of a heroin addict, and seing that thing gave me the shakes . I want.
No, it's a twin turbo Testarossa which tops out well north of 150, and a twin turbo F50 (which costs more than this plane/house/hamster run) that is a work in progress. Or at least, those are the really really non standard ones.
Sure, you could go the Carmack route and collect Ferraris, then start turbocharging them, or you could go the Gates route and build the uber-home. But really, doesn't every guy with his own software empire have a few Ferraris sitting around the back yard? And the uber-home isn't that cool without the smart house tech to back it up. Although I think the submerged airplane house would be even cooler. Just think, you could do your own amateur remakes of airplane 77 whenever you wanted!
Traffic is a problem no matter how transportation is fueled. Have you ever seen a bycycle traffic jam? It's just as bad, only instead of someone honking or flipping you the bird, they can spit, kick, whatever. As for smog and such, take a look at modern gas and deisel engines. You can find cars with emissions that are cleaner than the air they are using to burn the gas. Deisels that are as powerful as larger gas engines but burn _much_ less fuel, and within 1 to 2 research-years of being legal in California (which says a lot about the cleanliness of the emissions)
Damages are supposed to cover the cost of undoing the wrong that was done to you. At least that's the way that they are supposed to work. Do you support the death penalty for jaywalking? Life inprisonment as part of getting a parking ticket? If no wrong was really done, why should Toshiba be paying for this? If Joe-Bob Company realizes that they have a problem with their widget, this is one of the things that they need to take into account. Well, we've already sold x wigets. If one of them fails to widgetify due to our little miscalculation, what goes wrong? Who gets hurt? Do they sue us? How much would it cost us to replace all the widgets that we've already sold. And you know what? If I was the guy at Toshiba who found that there was a little problem with these floppies, I'd say fsck it. I mean, floppies are the single most common point of failure next to windows and the person at the keyboard. Do you ever save important data on a floppy? Why not? Because you don't want to lose the data? Golly, what an odd coincidence. Nobody was hurt by this "buggy" hardware, not even the guys who filed the suit. 2 billion is silly.
I don't remember the name of the case, but while studying the law in economic terms, I ran across a case where a lady tried to kill herself by locking herself in the trunk of her running car, was stuck in the trunk when the car ran out of gas, and tried to sue the car manufacturer for endangering her by not having some way for her to get out of the trunk. Does the legal system need to be revised? Quite a bit, yes.
This story is exactly why everyone and their mother can tell dozens of lawyer jokes. Toshiba ia a pretty decent company. They make decent, relaiable products, they treat their employees relatively well, they don't (AFAIK) try to get away with serious, corporate crimes (dumping toxins, hiring 6 year olds to work 20 hour days where tthey lose fingers, eyes, etc). They didn't make that guy from Australia pay the MS tax on his laptop. So, because they sold laptops which have a chance of corrupt data on every 512 byte, deserve to get nailed? It's not like life was at risk by Toshiba using this floppy drive in their laptops. Data might have been at risk. Of course, from the article, nobody actually lost any data due to this flaw. So no data was destroyed. So Toshiba is expected to pay 2 Billion US because nothing went wrong? The part of this that angers me the most is some of the comments thus far. Talking about how evil big business is. Talking about people getting screwed by the man. Toshiba has just been screwed, and these two guys and their lawyers were the ones who made out like bandits.
itachi, who asks (on topic) what one calls 5000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start.
Watching the current crop of Star Trek spinoffs is like going to the hospital to visit your sick, dying 120 year-old grandmother. You really love her, she's a great old lady, but it's clear that she's suffering. She was always so nice, you hate to see her in pain, but you hate to see her go. I think that maybe it's time to just let go. In fact, I think that the series finale for TNG would have been a great funeral, but it's a little late for that.
itachi
Re:Just what the hell is that supposed to mean?
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but the only thing I could get to run on the old MacIIvx I picked up a few months back was NetBSD. It is a bit of a point, there's hardware support for some seriously screwball hardware that was old when oil was still dinosaurs. Of course, Linux runs on almost as much stuff, I agree.
Stay away from Debian as a newbie? I would say it might be prefereable for a newbie. The key being getting in touch with the Debian community, be it through the mailing lists or whatever, and trying to learn as you go along. That and RTFM, but that pretty much applies to any linux/BSD newbie experience. As for RedHat as a newbie, I think it makes things very easy, but that can be very dangerous. A newbie doesn't know to remove un-needed daemons, use TCP wrappers, and not log in as root. If the install goes easy, and the installer pampers you, you forget the power that you are weilding with that CLI. Speaking as someone who started with RedHat and then quickly left for Debian and the BSDs, all of them are easy to use if you ask for help and RTFM.
On the one hand, I don't really see why the NSA is bothering to keep this stuff classified, I mean, since they can sheild stuff (it's required for high end Orange book cert, I think starting at B something...), it's not like releasing this stuff is going to cause the govt. any problems. Any really sensitive data is already going to be under some sort of Orange book reqs and therefore TEMPEST sheilded. Why bother classifying? All I can think of is security through obscurity, don't go telling those geeks how to do this, they might try to do it! (nevermind that a determined person with some physics texts, hardware specs, and FCC regs on interference could figure a lot of this out)
On the other hand, why should we care? I mean, how many people really would bother putting together tempest monitoring gear? It's pretty obvious what one needs to do to sheild vs. tempest monitoring - Faraday cage your computer workspace and filter any power/network/phone cables that enter the cage. The rest of the info is details that really are only needed WRT monitoring.
Am I misreading the issue? Is there something more on either side of this? I think much more interesting for a FOIA search is the CIA connection to drug smuggling (since the CIA IG told Congress that it _did_ in fact happen, I for one want to know just how involved the CIA was, for how long, and why....) But that's another topic...
But it has _STYLE_. It may be ugly style, but it is style. Grey and boxy is old and boring and unimaginative. The vaio I will agree, is different. The thinkpads have spiffy tidbits, like the one with the folding keyboard. But the average laptop is still stuck on the first basic laptop design...
It had to happen at some point. Someone, somewhere, trying to do something neat, got linux running on an iBook. Someone else submits the story to/. Then the/. anti-Mac bias kicks in, and rather than having a of discussion about the technical achievement, or people wondering if this might provide some insight into solving their problem with a funky piece of hardware, we have people talking trash about a computer that they have never used. It would be nice if once, we could have an Apple article posted to/. without the trash talk and dismissal of someone's hard work as garbage. The gent who got Linux running on an iBook has quite clearly done his reasearch and put a lot of effort into this. I, for one, think it is commendable.
Having gotten that out of the way, I think it's pretty slick. I'd much rather have an iBook (blue, the tangerine looks awful) that is dual boot than a PC laptop of the same price, regardless of the OS(s) on the PC. It's all about style, and let's face it, there isn't a single major laptop manufacturer out there with interesting industrial design, except for IBM and Apple. Now both IBM and Apple don't necessarily make the perfect laptop at any given point in time, but they make very slick laptops that are interestingly designed, and they both have a pretty solid track record for that. The clincher is that there's no way that you can find a ThinkPad that competes with the iBook for the same price. Though the stubby-eraser dealie is still a nicer design than a pad, imho.
Gay marriage is not recognized anywhere in the US. All it would take is one state, but noooooo... Hawaii almost did it a while ago, though. For that matter, I can't think of anywhere where gay marriages _are_ recognized.
Slashdot Mirror
Chivalry? I suppose that the answer to your first question is that the soldier is doing their job, the civilians are minding their own business. But then, at least on one side, some of the civilians tried to start the war (in most cases). But I agree completely, there's not much of a difference, dead is dead.
itachi
Since this is another article about the rules of war, it's still a teeny bit on-topic.
What's with the big peacenik/dove stance here at Slashdot, yet the vast appreciation for Doom, Quake, HalfLife, etc? Strikes me as a bit hypocritical. War is a nasty, ugly, messy, terrible thing, but sometimes it's needed. WWII, for instance. Or any number of "we're not your colony anymore" wars in Africa, South America, etc. I don't mean that every war is good, or that there is really such a thing as a good war, just that sometimes, when someone gets a little oppresive and power hungry, the only resort is violence. Sure, pacifistic resistance can work, but not in every case. Ditto diplomacy. I think that's something that we as a species need to come to grips with, esp. if we play at war (again, Quake, Doom, Starcraft, etc). Sure, we can have the idealized solution - put the world leaders in a [insert idealized solution here, like footrace/boxing ring/Q3DM] and whoever wins, wins. But what if they cheat? That's all.
itachi, who thinks that a little gibbing is a lot better than a real war any day.
flame on
Provide some examples. Again, it is a far more efficient use of resources for there to be a single natural monopoly, or at the very least, a single owner of infrastructure that leases use of the infrastructure to it's competition, but that requires govt. regulations. So we get back to the situation we are at today. I would maintain that there are situations where it really is a natural monopoly. Look at gas utilities. How feasible is it for one utility to build infrastructure for gas feed and then share it with others?
itachi
No, the market does nothing to monoploies. It can't, because by definition, a monopoly has monopoly power. By definition, monopoly power keeps a firm in a dominant role by way of the machanisms of the market. If a firm naturally loses dominance of the market, it wasn't a monopoly. Monopoly power includes the high cost of entry, making it prohibitive for other firms to enter the market, and the ability to dump goods below cost to drive other firms out of the market.
You mention that quality of service and price can only be determined by the market. This is true, after a fashion. However, in a monopoly situation, QOS falls, price rises, and quantity available falls. In a natural monoploy, the govt. assigns quotas to prevent the firm from exercising it's monopoly power. Again, look at local utilities. Call up your gas co. and ask them if they set the rates completely independantly, or if there are locl govt. regulations on rates.
You are correct about telcos, they are not as much of a natural monoploy anymore. I should have been more specific - local landlines are a natural monopoly. Now you can choose to go all cellular if you don't like the local landline provider, however, the cost of cellular does still restrict who can consume that market - local landlines are still much cheaper, at least in the US.
Finally, it is expected that the govt should hand off some monopolies - they have few other reasonable choices when it comes to natural monopolies. This is where regulation comes into play. One of the solutions that the authors imply is that AT&T should only be allowed to combine ISP and infrastructure and build this monopoly if they are regulated by the govt. until they are willing to open the infrastructure to other ISPs. This is exactly what i was arguing in my previous post, and it seems to be what you are looking for.
itachi
as always, feel free to email me and tell me I'm wrong...
There is a difference between stupid, un-needed regulation that screws with the way the market works and regulation that prevents a compnay from becoming a natural monopoly. The authors are suggesting that the FCC maintain competition and nothing more.
itachi
Businesses such as telco, gas, electric, etc are called natural monopolies, because it is inefficient and stupid for competing firms to lay redundant power/gas/telco lines through an area. Think about it - five different gas pipelines running under a given street, all maintained by different people. One day, there's a leak. You call all five, and they each say there's no trouble on their line, must be the other utility. Or phone poles with lines for all 43 local telcos? The way that natural monopolies are dealt with in free market economies is heavy govt. regulations or govt ownership. Look at your local utility companies, if you live in such a nation. The only way around natural monoploies that makes sense is requiring companies to lease out infrastructure for a fair price. So let's get some examples:
*Montgomery County, MD gas utility - (DC suburbs) gas is provided by one utility. There is no competition. However, the local govt. has pricing and quality of service restrictions on the utility to ensure that the monopoly power that they have granted the utility isn't abused.
*Cell Phones - Cell companies build cell infrastructure, and that isn't a natural monopoly. However, most local telcos are, so when you make a call on a cell phone to a local landline, what's happening is that the cell co. uses up some bandwidth that it has leased from the local telco. (this is assuming that the local telco is a natural monopoly)
*Long distance telco - no monoplies anymore, but the flexible infrastructure is very important and used in the same manner. Joe Bob and Peggy Sue start their lond distance service, but have no infrastructure. They lease a portion of some AT&T lines. AT&T wants to oversubscribe the lines, so it's in their interest, Joe Bob and Peggy Sue get some infrastructure space, and there's another long distance provider trying to bring lower prices to the market than its competition.
The reason these professors are rightly concerned is very clear. I would suggest that anyone who doesn't get their point should re-read the article, the whole way through. If one company controls the infrastructure, has no competiton, and goes unregulated, the consumer gets screwed. The FCC should NEVER hand a firm unregulated monoploy power. Would anyone here suggest that MS should have been handed its monoploy power by an agency of the federal govt?
itachi
In fact, the US also trounced the British at the battle of New Orleans several days after the war was over (but news hadn't gotten to N.O. yet)
itachi
No, it was a moderate success. After all, the Japanese fleet failed to sink any of the US PacFleet carriers. This, in turn, led to US victory at Midway, and eventually, the war (arguably). One of the major Japanese goals with Pearl Harbor was to nail the US carrier fleet. In that regard, the attack failed.
itachi
Okay, having studies economics for far too long, I have to point out that there is no such thing as a good or harmless monopoly. The only cases where a monopoly can be justified is a natural monopoly, and those are either run by the govt or heavily regulated (see your local telco provider, water company, electric provider) Even natural monpolies are starting to fall by the wayside. If you look at an open market, a market where one company has monopoly power, and a one compnay monopoly market, there's only one where the consumer isn't getting screwed. Hint: it's not the last two.
itachi
ps - feel free to email me and ask for much more detailed explanations....
It is impossible for a corporation with monopoly power to _not_ harm consumers. Fun economics tidbit of the day. So if they are a monopoly, they hurt everyone who used/uses an x86 based computer.
itachi
or should the guy who built that Millenium Falcon be working for LEGO? I mean, wow. Like wow. Really wow. I've only recently quit being the LEGO version of a heroin addict, and seing that thing gave me the shakes . I want.
itachi, who wants to work for LEGO
No, it's a twin turbo Testarossa which tops out well north of 150, and a twin turbo F50 (which costs more than this plane/house/hamster run) that is a work in progress. Or at least, those are the really really non standard ones.
Sure, you could go the Carmack route and collect Ferraris, then start turbocharging them, or you could go the Gates route and build the uber-home. But really, doesn't every guy with his own software empire have a few Ferraris sitting around the back yard? And the uber-home isn't that cool without the smart house tech to back it up. Although I think the submerged airplane house would be even cooler. Just think, you could do your own amateur remakes of airplane 77 whenever you wanted!
itachi
Traffic is a problem no matter how transportation is fueled. Have you ever seen a bycycle traffic jam? It's just as bad, only instead of someone honking or flipping you the bird, they can spit, kick, whatever.
As for smog and such, take a look at modern gas and deisel engines. You can find cars with emissions that are cleaner than the air they are using to burn the gas. Deisels that are as powerful as larger gas engines but burn _much_ less fuel, and within 1 to 2 research-years of being legal in California (which says a lot about the cleanliness of the emissions)
itachi, also a car geek
Damages are supposed to cover the cost of undoing the wrong that was done to you. At least that's the way that they are supposed to work. Do you support the death penalty for jaywalking? Life inprisonment as part of getting a parking ticket? If no wrong was really done, why should Toshiba be paying for this? If Joe-Bob Company realizes that they have a problem with their widget, this is one of the things that they need to take into account. Well, we've already sold x wigets. If one of them fails to widgetify due to our little miscalculation, what goes wrong? Who gets hurt? Do they sue us? How much would it cost us to replace all the widgets that we've already sold. And you know what? If I was the guy at Toshiba who found that there was a little problem with these floppies, I'd say fsck it. I mean, floppies are the single most common point of failure next to windows and the person at the keyboard. Do you ever save important data on a floppy? Why not? Because you don't want to lose the data? Golly, what an odd coincidence. Nobody was hurt by this "buggy" hardware, not even the guys who filed the suit. 2 billion is silly.
itachi
I don't remember the name of the case, but while studying the law in economic terms, I ran across a case where a lady tried to kill herself by locking herself in the trunk of her running car, was stuck in the trunk when the car ran out of gas, and tried to sue the car manufacturer for endangering her by not having some way for her to get out of the trunk. Does the legal system need to be revised? Quite a bit, yes.
itachi
This story is exactly why everyone and their mother can tell dozens of lawyer jokes. Toshiba ia a pretty decent company. They make decent, relaiable products, they treat their employees relatively well, they don't (AFAIK) try to get away with serious, corporate crimes (dumping toxins, hiring 6 year olds to work 20 hour days where tthey lose fingers, eyes, etc). They didn't make that guy from Australia pay the MS tax on his laptop. So, because they sold laptops which have a chance of corrupt data on every 512 byte, deserve to get nailed? It's not like life was at risk by Toshiba using this floppy drive in their laptops. Data might have been at risk. Of course, from the article, nobody actually lost any data due to this flaw. So no data was destroyed. So Toshiba is expected to pay 2 Billion US because nothing went wrong? The part of this that angers me the most is some of the comments thus far. Talking about how evil big business is. Talking about people getting screwed by the man. Toshiba has just been screwed, and these two guys and their lawyers were the ones who made out like bandits.
itachi, who asks (on topic) what one calls 5000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start.
Watching the current crop of Star Trek spinoffs is like going to the hospital to visit your sick, dying 120 year-old grandmother. You really love her, she's a great old lady, but it's clear that she's suffering. She was always so nice, you hate to see her in pain, but you hate to see her go. I think that maybe it's time to just let go. In fact, I think that the series finale for TNG would have been a great funeral, but it's a little late for that.
itachi
Yeah, but the only thing I could get to run on the old MacIIvx I picked up a few months back was NetBSD. It is a bit of a point, there's hardware support for some seriously screwball hardware that was old when oil was still dinosaurs. Of course, Linux runs on almost as much stuff, I agree.
itachi
Stay away from Debian as a newbie? I would say it might be prefereable for a newbie. The key being getting in touch with the Debian community, be it through the mailing lists or whatever, and trying to learn as you go along. That and RTFM, but that pretty much applies to any linux/BSD newbie experience. As for RedHat as a newbie, I think it makes things very easy, but that can be very dangerous. A newbie doesn't know to remove un-needed daemons, use TCP wrappers, and not log in as root. If the install goes easy, and the installer pampers you, you forget the power that you are weilding with that CLI. Speaking as someone who started with RedHat and then quickly left for Debian and the BSDs, all of them are easy to use if you ask for help and RTFM.
itachi
On the one hand, I don't really see why the NSA is bothering to keep this stuff classified, I mean, since they can sheild stuff (it's required for high end Orange book cert, I think starting at B something...), it's not like releasing this stuff is going to cause the govt. any problems. Any really sensitive data is already going to be under some sort of Orange book reqs and therefore TEMPEST sheilded. Why bother classifying? All I can think of is security through obscurity, don't go telling those geeks how to do this, they might try to do it! (nevermind that a determined person with some physics texts, hardware specs, and FCC regs on interference could figure a lot of this out)
On the other hand, why should we care? I mean, how many people really would bother putting together tempest monitoring gear? It's pretty obvious what one needs to do to sheild vs. tempest monitoring - Faraday cage your computer workspace and filter any power/network/phone cables that enter the cage. The rest of the info is details that really are only needed WRT monitoring.
Am I misreading the issue? Is there something more on either side of this? I think much more interesting for a FOIA search is the CIA connection to drug smuggling (since the CIA IG told Congress that it _did_ in fact happen, I for one want to know just how involved the CIA was, for how long, and why....) But that's another topic...
itachi
But it has _STYLE_. It may be ugly style, but it is style. Grey and boxy is old and boring and unimaginative. The vaio I will agree, is different. The thinkpads have spiffy tidbits, like the one with the folding keyboard. But the average laptop is still stuck on the first basic laptop design...
itachi
It had to happen at some point. Someone, somewhere, trying to do something neat, got linux running on an iBook. Someone else submits the story to /. Then the /. anti-Mac bias kicks in, and rather than having a of discussion about the technical achievement, or people wondering if this might provide some insight into solving their problem with a funky piece of hardware, we have people talking trash about a computer that they have never used. It would be nice if once, we could have an Apple article posted to /. without the trash talk and dismissal of someone's hard work as garbage. The gent who got Linux running on an iBook has quite clearly done his reasearch and put a lot of effort into this. I, for one, think it is commendable.
Having gotten that out of the way, I think it's pretty slick. I'd much rather have an iBook (blue, the tangerine looks awful) that is dual boot than a PC laptop of the same price, regardless of the OS(s) on the PC. It's all about style, and let's face it, there isn't a single major laptop manufacturer out there with interesting industrial design, except for IBM and Apple. Now both IBM and Apple don't necessarily make the perfect laptop at any given point in time, but they make very slick laptops that are interestingly designed, and they both have a pretty solid track record for that. The clincher is that there's no way that you can find a ThinkPad that competes with the iBook for the same price. Though the stubby-eraser dealie is still a nicer design than a pad, imho.
itachi, who still wants an iBook running Linux
Some thoughtful AC, who really should be moderated up, suggested a class action lawsuit vs. the USPTO.
>I say we get a class action lawsuit put together
>against the US patent office for negligence in >what patents they allow to be registered.
IANAL and don't know how feasible this is, or realistic, but given patenets such as this, who knows? Someone moderate that up....
itachi
Gay marriage is not recognized anywhere in the US. All it would take is one state, but noooooo... Hawaii almost did it a while ago, though. For that matter, I can't think of anywhere where gay marriages _are_ recognized.
itachi