The influence of wealth, and indeed the concept of wealth itself, is only an illusion that has power because we allow it. The few people that make up The Powers that Be are vastly outnumbered by those that they "keep down". The tool that they use to do this is all of our agreement that they actually have some power over us. If we were to all agree that they have no more wealth or power than the rest of us, then they wouldn't.
So ultimately, we are all completely responsible for the situation that we are in.
You really think they don't use compromised hosts elsewhere to mount these attacks? Guess where the LEAST likely source address an attack from China would probably come from? Right. APNIC address space in China.
Yes and no.
While I'm sure a real attack would come from a compromised host somewhere else, I noticed that the bulk of the portscans and ssh auth attempts that my systems log are from these address blocks.
Maybe it's just kids screwing around or maybe they're gathering intel on systems they can use to conduct bigger attacks later. Either way, my systems see a whole lot less malicious traffic now that I've blocked China.
There are definitely thing that just don't work well on iPhones.
Personally, I'd have touch represent click events, touch-and-drag represent mouseover / general mouse movement events, and touch-twice-and-drag represent the comparatively rare click-and-drag event. That should be sufficient to cover 99% of use cases.
But the whole concept of mouseover events depends entirely on the existence of a persistent cursor that's moved around with a mouse. What you describe would be a feasible way to shoehorn mouseover compatibility into a touch based interface, but it just doesn't fit into the touch interface paradigm. The "click" action is shared between the two paradigms, but other than that they are very different. The best idea is to just redesign sites that depend on mouseover events (or at least offer an alternative interface for touch-based devices or gracefully handle the lack of mouseover events).
Basing any sort of anti-cheat on stats would be a terrible idea.
More to the point, you don't even need any automated system for that, if players can kickvote. In fact, all too often I see people kickvoted for being "too good", even when it's clear to better players that it really is probably just skill and not hacking.
Usually, the protection against that is player recognition. I've been playing Dystopia a lot lately and the relatively small community combined with the stats (and ranking) system provide that. You get good by playing a lot, which means that other players recognize you and your rank goes up. The model of having you spec other teammates between respawns also helps you spot cheaters without having to stop playing to spec them.
Google just bought Gizmo5, though, which I assume means that they'll be rolling out VoIP access to Google Voice soon. GV (and Grand Central before it was acquired by Google) supports forwarding to Gizmo5 explicitly. Google Voice will likely be VoIP soon.
Well there is still the issue of punitive damages, which would make the code not quite free. Also, the fact that the code is being used for commercial purposes may affect the amount of damages rewarded. If someone took the poem that you put on your website, included it in a book and started selling it, you could collect damages even though you were giving it away for free.
Advertising is milking the gullible and ads should be recognized as what they truly are: an offense to our intellect.
It's interesting to note that this is getting worse as time goes on. Take a moment and dig through some old magazines. Some of the ads (not all of them, I'll admit) are stunning in the amount of real, often technical, information that they present about the products.
What if you were to claim that the WTC attacks were (misguidedly) aimed at the means of production? Would that then make them a legitimate military target? Infrastructure facilitating the military of an opposing power are legit targets, even if they are staffed with civilians.
In the early Victorian period in particular the drive for rationalism and empirical information was everywhere. The heros of the age were scientists, explorers and engineers.
Don't be so sure of this. Your view of those times is based on the writings of the intelligentsia, who may have held the scientists as heroes. The unwashed masses were just as ignorant and superstitious as before (and now).
Not to mention that if you're carrying large guns and firing upon other ships on the high seas, I wouldn't be too sure of the fact that you'll immediately be identified as the "good guys" by the people coming to help you.
That is absolutely correct. Why should public money go to yet another private company?
Where did you read that the NSF was giving money to a private company? This is a research grant that is being paid to faculty at a university to fund research on how to make smartphones more secure. This is spelled out in the first sentence of the summary.
Seriously, sometimes the game of rabid-emotional-frenzy telephone that goes on here is a little much.
Seriously, though, does anybody else find the idea of projecting directly on the eye a little disturbing?
Having been hit in the eye with a laser at a light show (flight path was supposed to terminate below where I was, but something went wrong), and lucky to escape without long term injury, I do.
Having had half my head seared off by an industrial metal-cutting laser, I agree with you. The microwatt lasers that these systems use must be identical to the ones that they use in laser light shows.
But that doesn't explain why service, pricing, and general offerings are still so terrible in major American cities.
While there is much less of an argument for the lack of cheap local broadband options, there is a fundamental issue with the expectation of local mobile phone service providers: lack of mobility. In fact, there are cheap local mobile phone service providers and I assume that they're doing alright, but I imagine few people are interested in a cell phone that doesn't work (or becomes extremely expensive to use) outside of the city they live in.
Jamaica though is about as large as some of the USs smaller states, say Rhode Island.
So why can't you get the access he describes in Rhode Island?
The scalability excuse looses any meaning when you stop considering the country as a whole and start looking at individual regions where that level of service isn't available. The city I live in is smaller than Jamaica, why can't I get the deal that he does?
If they're already changing the protocols and not testing them before using them, what's to say they don't just defeat the hardware interlock by putting a piece of lead foil over it?
What a remarkably uninsightful comment, and clearly an indicator that you don't know much about the US government (or the British government, I suppose). The US and UK governments have very little in common beside the fact that the citizens are "represented" by members of a large legislative body and the executive has a single person "in charge" of it.
The UK government is a unitary state with a parliamentary system, where the executive functions are filled from members of the legislature. The Prime Minister is essentially the head of both the executive and legislative functions, and is not specifically elected to that position by the citizenry. In the times when the early US gov't was being formed, there was also an acting monarch, who was a hereditary sovereign and the acting head of the executive functions.
The US government is (slowly becoming past tense?) firstly a federal system, where the states have their own sovereignty and can challenge the power of the federal government. It's distinct separation of powers and independent branches of government starkly contrast with the British parliamentary system, also. The US chief executive is essentially voted for by the citizens (or by the states if the electoral college's vote disagrees with the popular vote). This allows the executive and legislative bodies to be held by different parties, very unlike the British parliamentary system.
Also, the people who formed the US government, while being British in origin, were not terribly thrilled with the way the British government was arranged. The US was to some extent influenced by the Iroquois government. The federal system and separation of powers alone present a stark contrast to the British government, especially in the eighteenth century.
WRT #2, how about all contributions are anonymized before they get to the candidate's fund? You can give money to any and all candidates, but you can't claim credit for it. A bribe can't carry any weight if you can't prove you made it.
As for #4, I'm all for that. I have extensive notes on how the mechanics of that would work and I think it would do wonders for keeping our legal system simple and up-to-date, while conveniently keeping Congress nice and busy.
Storing your contacts on the SIM card isn't a solution to syncing your contacts with your computer, and it's not fair to assume that not having to re-enter his contacts is the only reason he'd like to be able to sync his computer contacts with his phone (even if that is the one example he gave). Keeping contacts synced between the computer and phone has other helpful uses as well, like keeping information up to date and not having several inconsistent phone numbers/email addresses/physical addresses spread across your phones and computers. Also, SIM card or not, if he could sync with his computer, he would be able to transfer the contacts to his new phone. So at best, you've offered a different way to achieve the goal of transferring contacts.
Frankly though, unless storing contacts on SIM cards has changed since I last tried it (admittedly several years ago), there are several big disadvantages to using SIM contacts (eg, you're limited to a single phone number/address/email per entry; can you even store physical addresses?, etc)...
They are implementing this via a custom conduit that uses WEBDAV. It's not clear if this requires anything installed on the server side, if so then its a non-starter for most folks. For Apple PC's you're probably better off simply using the webmail interface anyway. This does provide a means for mobile sysems such as phones or laptops to actually download the messages.
Snow Leopard's Exchange support works very well for connecting to my department's servers, and they're about as anti-Apple as you can get. They absolutely refuse to even make the smallest config changes to allow non-Outlook clients to connect (ie. Entourage) and I can connect flawlessly (AFAIK...). I have mail support, calendar support (with functioning invited events), tasks/todo support, contacts and access to the global address books, all through Apple's standard applications. They may be implementing this through a WebDAV backed conduit, but as far as functionality goes, this is the real deal.
Slashdot Mirror
The influence of wealth, and indeed the concept of wealth itself, is only an illusion that has power because we allow it. The few people that make up The Powers that Be are vastly outnumbered by those that they "keep down". The tool that they use to do this is all of our agreement that they actually have some power over us. If we were to all agree that they have no more wealth or power than the rest of us, then they wouldn't.
So ultimately, we are all completely responsible for the situation that we are in.
You really think they don't use compromised hosts elsewhere to mount these attacks? Guess where the LEAST likely source address an attack from China would probably come from? Right. APNIC address space in China.
Yes and no.
While I'm sure a real attack would come from a compromised host somewhere else, I noticed that the bulk of the portscans and ssh auth attempts that my systems log are from these address blocks.
Maybe it's just kids screwing around or maybe they're gathering intel on systems they can use to conduct bigger attacks later. Either way, my systems see a whole lot less malicious traffic now that I've blocked China.
There are definitely thing that just don't work well on iPhones.
Personally, I'd have touch represent click events, touch-and-drag represent mouseover / general mouse movement events, and touch-twice-and-drag represent the comparatively rare click-and-drag event. That should be sufficient to cover 99% of use cases.
But the whole concept of mouseover events depends entirely on the existence of a persistent cursor that's moved around with a mouse. What you describe would be a feasible way to shoehorn mouseover compatibility into a touch based interface, but it just doesn't fit into the touch interface paradigm. The "click" action is shared between the two paradigms, but other than that they are very different. The best idea is to just redesign sites that depend on mouseover events (or at least offer an alternative interface for touch-based devices or gracefully handle the lack of mouseover events).
Basing any sort of anti-cheat on stats would be a terrible idea.
More to the point, you don't even need any automated system for that, if players can kickvote. In fact, all too often I see people kickvoted for being "too good", even when it's clear to better players that it really is probably just skill and not hacking.
Usually, the protection against that is player recognition. I've been playing Dystopia a lot lately and the relatively small community combined with the stats (and ranking) system provide that. You get good by playing a lot, which means that other players recognize you and your rank goes up. The model of having you spec other teammates between respawns also helps you spot cheaters without having to stop playing to spec them.
rationization^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
You know, a good old fashioned ^W would save a little time and keyboard mashing.
...although I can't speak for the accuracy (meaning repeatability).
Repeatability is precision.
Google just bought Gizmo5, though, which I assume means that they'll be rolling out VoIP access to Google Voice soon. GV (and Grand Central before it was acquired by Google) supports forwarding to Gizmo5 explicitly. Google Voice will likely be VoIP soon.
Well there is still the issue of punitive damages, which would make the code not quite free. Also, the fact that the code is being used for commercial purposes may affect the amount of damages rewarded. If someone took the poem that you put on your website, included it in a book and started selling it, you could collect damages even though you were giving it away for free.
Advertising is milking the gullible and ads should be recognized as what they truly are: an offense to our intellect.
It's interesting to note that this is getting worse as time goes on. Take a moment and dig through some old magazines. Some of the ads (not all of them, I'll admit) are stunning in the amount of real, often technical, information that they present about the products.
What if you were to claim that the WTC attacks were (misguidedly) aimed at the means of production? Would that then make them a legitimate military target? Infrastructure facilitating the military of an opposing power are legit targets, even if they are staffed with civilians.
...the constitutional idea of capitalism...
Huh?
I prefer a using shotgun and slugs. At the very least, the holes it leaves are big. Usually, you get some pretty satisfying results, though.
In the early Victorian period in particular the drive for rationalism and empirical information was everywhere. The heros of the age were scientists, explorers and engineers.
Don't be so sure of this. Your view of those times is based on the writings of the intelligentsia, who may have held the scientists as heroes. The unwashed masses were just as ignorant and superstitious as before (and now).
Not to mention that if you're carrying large guns and firing upon other ships on the high seas, I wouldn't be too sure of the fact that you'll immediately be identified as the "good guys" by the people coming to help you.
NSF should not be paying a cent for this.
That is absolutely correct. Why should public money go to yet another private company?
Where did you read that the NSF was giving money to a private company? This is a research grant that is being paid to faculty at a university to fund research on how to make smartphones more secure. This is spelled out in the first sentence of the summary.
Seriously, sometimes the game of rabid-emotional-frenzy telephone that goes on here is a little much.
Seriously, though, does anybody else find the idea of projecting directly on the eye a little disturbing?
Having been hit in the eye with a laser at a light show (flight path was supposed to terminate below where I was, but something went wrong), and lucky to escape without long term injury, I do.
Having had half my head seared off by an industrial metal-cutting laser, I agree with you. The microwatt lasers that these systems use must be identical to the ones that they use in laser light shows.
But that doesn't explain why service, pricing, and general offerings are still so terrible in major American cities.
While there is much less of an argument for the lack of cheap local broadband options, there is a fundamental issue with the expectation of local mobile phone service providers: lack of mobility. In fact, there are cheap local mobile phone service providers and I assume that they're doing alright, but I imagine few people are interested in a cell phone that doesn't work (or becomes extremely expensive to use) outside of the city they live in.
Jamaica though is about as large as some of the USs smaller states, say Rhode Island.
So why can't you get the access he describes in Rhode Island?
The scalability excuse looses any meaning when you stop considering the country as a whole and start looking at individual regions where that level of service isn't available. The city I live in is smaller than Jamaica, why can't I get the deal that he does?
If they're already changing the protocols and not testing them before using them, what's to say they don't just defeat the hardware interlock by putting a piece of lead foil over it?
The actual article is here.
What a remarkably uninsightful comment, and clearly an indicator that you don't know much about the US government (or the British government, I suppose). The US and UK governments have very little in common beside the fact that the citizens are "represented" by members of a large legislative body and the executive has a single person "in charge" of it.
The UK government is a unitary state with a parliamentary system, where the executive functions are filled from members of the legislature. The Prime Minister is essentially the head of both the executive and legislative functions, and is not specifically elected to that position by the citizenry. In the times when the early US gov't was being formed, there was also an acting monarch, who was a hereditary sovereign and the acting head of the executive functions.
The US government is (slowly becoming past tense?) firstly a federal system, where the states have their own sovereignty and can challenge the power of the federal government. It's distinct separation of powers and independent branches of government starkly contrast with the British parliamentary system, also. The US chief executive is essentially voted for by the citizens (or by the states if the electoral college's vote disagrees with the popular vote). This allows the executive and legislative bodies to be held by different parties, very unlike the British parliamentary system.
Also, the people who formed the US government, while being British in origin, were not terribly thrilled with the way the British government was arranged. The US was to some extent influenced by the Iroquois government. The federal system and separation of powers alone present a stark contrast to the British government, especially in the eighteenth century.
...from lunch, though. He's a cannibal, which is possibly more interesting than a spy.
WRT #2, how about all contributions are anonymized before they get to the candidate's fund? You can give money to any and all candidates, but you can't claim credit for it. A bribe can't carry any weight if you can't prove you made it.
As for #4, I'm all for that. I have extensive notes on how the mechanics of that would work and I think it would do wonders for keeping our legal system simple and up-to-date, while conveniently keeping Congress nice and busy.
Storing your contacts on the SIM card isn't a solution to syncing your contacts with your computer, and it's not fair to assume that not having to re-enter his contacts is the only reason he'd like to be able to sync his computer contacts with his phone (even if that is the one example he gave). Keeping contacts synced between the computer and phone has other helpful uses as well, like keeping information up to date and not having several inconsistent phone numbers/email addresses/physical addresses spread across your phones and computers. Also, SIM card or not, if he could sync with his computer, he would be able to transfer the contacts to his new phone. So at best, you've offered a different way to achieve the goal of transferring contacts.
Frankly though, unless storing contacts on SIM cards has changed since I last tried it (admittedly several years ago), there are several big disadvantages to using SIM contacts (eg, you're limited to a single phone number/address/email per entry; can you even store physical addresses?, etc)...
They are implementing this via a custom conduit that uses WEBDAV. It's not clear if this requires anything installed on the server side, if so then its a non-starter for most folks. For Apple PC's you're probably better off simply using the webmail interface anyway. This does provide a means for mobile sysems such as phones or laptops to actually download the messages.
Snow Leopard's Exchange support works very well for connecting to my department's servers, and they're about as anti-Apple as you can get. They absolutely refuse to even make the smallest config changes to allow non-Outlook clients to connect (ie. Entourage) and I can connect flawlessly (AFAIK...). I have mail support, calendar support (with functioning invited events), tasks/todo support, contacts and access to the global address books, all through Apple's standard applications. They may be implementing this through a WebDAV backed conduit, but as far as functionality goes, this is the real deal.