Ah yes. I too am a southerner, and although I've sworn off of coke (meaning I no longer drink any sort of cola), that's my generic term for the stuff.
But I've never heard of anyone getting coke instead of dr. pepper. AFAIK in the south it's the 'default' soda that's generic. So you can order a coke and get a pepsi and have recieved what you ordered. But dr. pepper, rc cola, mello yello, etc. are generally ordered specifically.
Also, while soda, cola and pop are all stupid names that non-southerners use, my favorite is the term that's popular in massachusetts: tonic.
They're really not all that pricey compared to the iMac. My suggestion is to price a bare-bones system at Apple's website. RAM, extra disk space, monitors, etc. are always cheaper from third parties. Besides, I remember the days when Apple couldn't make a modem to save it's life. They're great computers, so-so peripherals.
What i would like to see (note that I am not a big unix guy - this may already be possible) is a file manager in which 'rules' can be set up for how the content displays in the window for various directories, file types and files.
(naturally they'd be overridable)
For a similar thing, consider how readme files appear when ftping to particular directories.
Various components could exist for html display (a linked library, i'd guess) or flash, or generic ls data, or whatnot. This helps preserve the unix philosophy of many small tools. The rule file merely calls different components according to the info in the rule file.
CSS would probably be useful in designing the rules - letting the rule styles generally cascade down for consistency.
I'm basically saying that forcing anyone to use a superior technology often works out okay in the end. But that OEMs and users alike are reluctant to move, even if there are obvious advantages, because no one else is doing it.
That's understandable since not all technologies are superior, and no one wants to get stranded. But people would've stuck with PS2 / Serial / Parallel forever if no one forced the issue.
Apple screws up a lot too. For successes like mice, 3.5" floppies, USB, CD-ROM (lots of support for this a long time ago in 1x days) there have been failures: Twiggy disks, NuBus, ADB (only successful in Apple and NeXT-land) and potentially firewire.
But who else does stuff like this that (frequently) improves stuff for everyone? Really, who?
Re:Warning: Idealist: RJ and USB is all we need!
on
Serial ATA and USB 2
·
· Score: 1
cos USB is gonna kill you on video and hard drives.
USB for low-bandwith devices - keyboards, mice, consumer printers (real men use ethernet printers;)
Firewire for high-bandwith devices - hard drives, digital audio/video, high-end scanners (the kind that cost more than your car and if misused could sterilize you)
Note that you don't really want to use either for your monitor - think about how much data 1600x1200x24 bits, 30 times a second _is_. Give it its own damn bus.
looks a lot like (and iirc, was inspired by) game boy connectors. bit thicker though. most consumer electronics / computer stores (e.g. circuit city, compusa) ought to have 'em.
iMacs are not for you, guy. They're basically intended for the person who never would imagine upgrading hardware, doesn't even realize that you can add stuff to any computer once it's out of the factory. And certainly not a developer.
Anyone who'd care at all about pumping up their system shouldn't buy an iMac (except as a neat toy - the blue one would match my old bathroom very nicely;)
Yeah, but there were hardly any USB devices - Apple has had a habit of forcing people to get off their asses and adopt new and better technologies by immediately requiring their use.
One good example is the mouse. Why is it that no one really used mice (which have been around since the 60's) until the Mac not only came standard with them, but *required* their use? Now everyone seems to agree that mice are a pretty good idea. Never would've happened w/o someone ramming down yer throat though.
USB is nice, I like it, Intel may have developed it but Apple popularized it.
Firewire is also nice - both standards complement each other - and I'd like to see it get more common, dammit.
Sorry Captain, maybe you're a christian and you like to simply overlook certain atrocities. If you think Christians are harmless then go talk to the people of Croatia and Bosnia who had to suffer from the Orthodox Christians. Tell it to the few survivng members of Vokovar.
Heh. Actually, I'm Jewish. But I never said that people who _claim_ to be Christians are harmless. I would expect, OTOH, someone who firmly believed and behaved in accordance with Christianity would likely be harmless. There is a difference in what someone says they are and what someone actually is.
Just trying to respond to both SIGFPE and Mawbid here...
(IANA Christian or Muslim...)
What I meant was this: Christianity and Islam are both different religions, sure.
But Christianity, it seems to me, requires believers to love their neighbors; to consider one's own problems before considering others; and is generally against hostility. I can see proselytizing coming from Christians, but not much more.
Islam, I understand, requires believers to be tolerant of Jews and Christians, due to the related nature of the three religions. They needn't particularly love each other, but there are limits to what can be done.
But I'm not saying that you can be both, merely that both religions, imho, have practices which permit them to coexist peacefully. That they haven't is probably due to people on both sides who are not living by their espoused religious beliefs.
Perhaps someone more knowledgable of comparative religion can help out here?
Islam and Christianity are mutually incompatible...
What makes you say this? From what I know of the two religions (I'm neither, thanks) they should be able to coexist peacefully without too much trouble if both sides are willing to live up to the teachings.
Cultural, not religious differences, are more likely the root of this animosity, I'd expect. The crusaders, IIRC, killed many more middle eastern Christians than they did Muslims because they couldn't tell the difference and often didn't care.
What really, _really_ gets me pissed off is that when the report was released, the censors censored out the report, filing it into every category: sex, hate speech, etc.
If you're incapable of tolerating *criticism* this immediately indicates that there is something seriously wrong.
While I don't support censorship of any sort (quite different from forcing people to read everything) I would at least be more accepting of censors who welcomed input as to what is and is not acceptable, and who corrected their errors in a responsible fashion.
Naw, I don't necessarily thing that fooling with the video is necessarily illegal. For instance, on my Mac, the ATI DVD decoder card sends output to the screen, but should you try to do a screen capture or whatnot you'd find that all the computer is aware of is a green region where the card inserts the video.
You're telling me that kludging together a system where I could watch a DVD on a screen not directly hooked up to that card (e.g. if I have multiple screens) would be illegal? Why? What's the difference?
Yeah, I don't mind the Libertarians overmuch, but I'm generally against any entity aggregating a large amount of power, be it the government, a corporation, or religion, or whatever.
A small set of easily understood rules and no special benefits to anyone (e.g. the granting of corporate charters to groups of people - let them be successful as people, I say) would suit me.
IMHO, the point of our government is to keep balance. Let something grow too powerful, even if it's benign, and it throws everything out of whack.
While the encrypted data are evidence, I fail to see (this particular law aside) when exactly it became manditory to help the police at every turn.
Instead this sounds to me as though it is now illegal to be more clever than the police are.
Encrypted evidence, while admissible as proof that there was encrypted material, proves nothing else until decrypted. It could be a bomb conspiracy or it could be the day's stock reports. Supposition on the part of the police is no replacement for fact. If it were, they could claim that my shopping list was actually a steganographically encrypted plot to take over the world. (hmm... i'll need to buy 'eggs' too, heh heh heh)
I think that it's debatable, as the password is a form of knowledge, not a tangible thing.
A warrant can only (IANAL) provide access to physical items and spaces. You can't get a warrant to look into someone's mind.
Furthermore, while you can be subpoenaed and compelled to give testimony, which relates to knowledge, that's where the 5th can kick in. Now if it won't incriminate you then you might need to reveal it, but I'm not certain if you are required to discuss even potentially incriminating evidence unless granted immunity regarding what you reveal.
Anyway, it all seems like a good argument against using biometrics (or relying too heavily on them anyhow) to me.
Or use the contents of a widely available edition of some book. RAND's "One Million Random Numbers" might work well against the lay decrypter (e.g. FBI but not, not, not NSA;)
Just as long as you know what the source is, the password can be unbelivably huge and you need not memorize it and trust that you won't forget something important.
Depending on the criteria used to select the 'hiding in plain sight' key, this could be easily as reliable as traditional passwords. Any cypherpunks care to comment?
I think that it's pretty clear that revealing a password can be considered self-incriminatory.
And unless they've got quite a lot of support, hardly anyone's going to say that garbage characters is significant evidence. (this is where Mitnick's latest issue breaks down - there's a very good reason to believe that there are nasty things in his files)
1st the wizards don't like the idea, because letters used in printing one magical book tend to acquire some magical properties themselves, and this can be bad when printing a totally different magical book.
After all, the books in the library of the wizard's school (Unseen University) tend to be chained down to the shelves for the protection of the books, patrons and the universe at large, and let's not even get into the grounding rods...
But 2nd, the Guild of Engravers is happy with their monopoly. Footnotes in earlier books point out that movable type has been known for a while and tried before. But then the printer using it committed suicide. They knew it was suicide because of the note that was engraved on the head of a pin;)
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes. I too am a southerner, and although I've sworn off of coke (meaning I no longer drink any sort of cola), that's my generic term for the stuff.
But I've never heard of anyone getting coke instead of dr. pepper. AFAIK in the south it's the 'default' soda that's generic. So you can order a coke and get a pepsi and have recieved what you ordered. But dr. pepper, rc cola, mello yello, etc. are generally ordered specifically.
Also, while soda, cola and pop are all stupid names that non-southerners use, my favorite is the term that's popular in massachusetts: tonic.
heh heh, stupid yankees.
I have a G4 minitower at work. I like it. ;)
They're really not all that pricey compared to the iMac. My suggestion is to price a bare-bones system at Apple's website. RAM, extra disk space, monitors, etc. are always cheaper from third parties. Besides, I remember the days when Apple couldn't make a modem to save it's life. They're great computers, so-so peripherals.
What i would like to see (note that I am not a big unix guy - this may already be possible) is a file manager in which 'rules' can be set up for how the content displays in the window for various directories, file types and files.
(naturally they'd be overridable)
For a similar thing, consider how readme files appear when ftping to particular directories.
Various components could exist for html display (a linked library, i'd guess) or flash, or generic ls data, or whatnot. This helps preserve the unix philosophy of many small tools. The rule file merely calls different components according to the info in the rule file.
CSS would probably be useful in designing the rules - letting the rule styles generally cascade down for consistency.
Apple saintly? That'll be the day.
I'm basically saying that forcing anyone to use a superior technology often works out okay in the end. But that OEMs and users alike are reluctant to move, even if there are obvious advantages, because no one else is doing it.
That's understandable since not all technologies are superior, and no one wants to get stranded. But people would've stuck with PS2 / Serial / Parallel forever if no one forced the issue.
Apple screws up a lot too. For successes like mice, 3.5" floppies, USB, CD-ROM (lots of support for this a long time ago in 1x days) there have been failures: Twiggy disks, NuBus, ADB (only successful in Apple and NeXT-land) and potentially firewire.
But who else does stuff like this that (frequently) improves stuff for everyone? Really, who?
cos USB is gonna kill you on video and hard drives.
;)
USB for low-bandwith devices - keyboards, mice, consumer printers (real men use ethernet printers
Firewire for high-bandwith devices - hard drives, digital audio/video, high-end scanners (the kind that cost more than your car and if misused could sterilize you)
Note that you don't really want to use either for your monitor - think about how much data 1600x1200x24 bits, 30 times a second _is_. Give it its own damn bus.
looks a lot like (and iirc, was inspired by) game boy connectors. bit thicker though. most consumer electronics / computer stores (e.g. circuit city, compusa) ought to have 'em.
Then get a G3 or G4 minitower.
;)
iMacs are not for you, guy. They're basically intended for the person who never would imagine upgrading hardware, doesn't even realize that you can add stuff to any computer once it's out of the factory. And certainly not a developer.
Anyone who'd care at all about pumping up their system shouldn't buy an iMac (except as a neat toy - the blue one would match my old bathroom very nicely
Yeah, but there were hardly any USB devices - Apple has had a habit of forcing people to get off their asses and adopt new and better technologies by immediately requiring their use.
One good example is the mouse. Why is it that no one really used mice (which have been around since the 60's) until the Mac not only came standard with them, but *required* their use? Now everyone seems to agree that mice are a pretty good idea. Never would've happened w/o someone ramming down yer throat though.
USB is nice, I like it, Intel may have developed it but Apple popularized it.
Firewire is also nice - both standards complement each other - and I'd like to see it get more common, dammit.
Heh. Actually, I'm Jewish. But I never said that people who _claim_ to be Christians are harmless. I would expect, OTOH, someone who firmly believed and behaved in accordance with Christianity would likely be harmless. There is a difference in what someone says they are and what someone actually is.
Just trying to respond to both SIGFPE and Mawbid here...
(IANA Christian or Muslim...)
What I meant was this:
Christianity and Islam are both different religions, sure.
But Christianity, it seems to me, requires believers to love their neighbors; to consider one's own problems before considering others; and is generally against hostility. I can see proselytizing coming from Christians, but not much more.
Islam, I understand, requires believers to be tolerant of Jews and Christians, due to the related nature of the three religions. They needn't particularly love each other, but there are limits to what can be done.
But I'm not saying that you can be both, merely that both religions, imho, have practices which permit them to coexist peacefully. That they haven't is probably due to people on both sides who are not living by their espoused religious beliefs.
Perhaps someone more knowledgable of comparative religion can help out here?
What makes you say this? From what I know of the two religions (I'm neither, thanks) they should be able to coexist peacefully without too much trouble if both sides are willing to live up to the teachings.
Cultural, not religious differences, are more likely the root of this animosity, I'd expect. The crusaders, IIRC, killed many more middle eastern Christians than they did Muslims because they couldn't tell the difference and often didn't care.
What really, _really_ gets me pissed off is that when the report was released, the censors censored out the report, filing it into every category: sex, hate speech, etc.
If you're incapable of tolerating *criticism* this immediately indicates that there is something seriously wrong.
While I don't support censorship of any sort (quite different from forcing people to read everything) I would at least be more accepting of censors who welcomed input as to what is and is not acceptable, and who corrected their errors in a responsible fashion.
Naw, I don't necessarily thing that fooling with the video is necessarily illegal. For instance, on my Mac, the ATI DVD decoder card sends output to the screen, but should you try to do a screen capture or whatnot you'd find that all the computer is aware of is a green region where the card inserts the video.
You're telling me that kludging together a system where I could watch a DVD on a screen not directly hooked up to that card (e.g. if I have multiple screens) would be illegal? Why? What's the difference?
Also a good superhero parody (though a bit more oriented on the industry than the actual heroes) is Lethargic Lad.
Of course there are lots of similarities between the Tick and Him, but afaik they were created independently of each other.
Yeah, I don't mind the Libertarians overmuch, but I'm generally against any entity aggregating a large amount of power, be it the government, a corporation, or religion, or whatever.
A small set of easily understood rules and no special benefits to anyone (e.g. the granting of corporate charters to groups of people - let them be successful as people, I say) would suit me.
IMHO, the point of our government is to keep balance. Let something grow too powerful, even if it's benign, and it throws everything out of whack.
I'd say that the Korean War was more of the first step rather than the Vietnamese War.
Here you go
While the encrypted data are evidence, I fail to see (this particular law aside) when exactly it became manditory to help the police at every turn.
Instead this sounds to me as though it is now illegal to be more clever than the police are.
Encrypted evidence, while admissible as proof that there was encrypted material, proves nothing else until decrypted. It could be a bomb conspiracy or it could be the day's stock reports. Supposition on the part of the police is no replacement for fact. If it were, they could claim that my shopping list was actually a steganographically encrypted plot to take over the world. (hmm... i'll need to buy 'eggs' too, heh heh heh)
All in all, this is a really stupid, stupid law.
(cpt - used to be st942593@pip.cc.brandeis.edu)
I think that it's debatable, as the password is a form of knowledge, not a tangible thing.
A warrant can only (IANAL) provide access to physical items and spaces. You can't get a warrant to look into someone's mind.
Furthermore, while you can be subpoenaed and compelled to give testimony, which relates to knowledge, that's where the 5th can kick in. Now if it won't incriminate you then you might need to reveal it, but I'm not certain if you are required to discuss even potentially incriminating evidence unless granted immunity regarding what you reveal.
Anyway, it all seems like a good argument against using biometrics (or relying too heavily on them anyhow) to me.
Or use the contents of a widely available edition of some book. RAND's "One Million Random Numbers" might work well against the lay decrypter (e.g. FBI but not, not, not NSA ;)
Just as long as you know what the source is, the password can be unbelivably huge and you need not memorize it and trust that you won't forget something important.
Depending on the criteria used to select the 'hiding in plain sight' key, this could be easily as reliable as traditional passwords. Any cypherpunks care to comment?
I think that it's pretty clear that revealing a password can be considered self-incriminatory.
And unless they've got quite a lot of support, hardly anyone's going to say that garbage characters is significant evidence. (this is where Mitnick's latest issue breaks down - there's a very good reason to believe that there are nasty things in his files)
It probably ended up landing on top of the Mars Polar Lander ;)
Well, okay, it's both.
;)
1st the wizards don't like the idea, because letters used in printing one magical book tend to acquire some magical properties themselves, and this can be bad when printing a totally different magical book.
After all, the books in the library of the wizard's school (Unseen University) tend to be chained down to the shelves for the protection of the books, patrons and the universe at large, and let's not even get into the grounding rods...
But 2nd, the Guild of Engravers is happy with their monopoly. Footnotes in earlier books point out that movable type has been known for a while and tried before. But then the printer using it committed suicide. They knew it was suicide because of the note that was engraved on the head of a pin
It's probably a secret hidden feature of Napster ;)
(no one's going to saturate a T3 with mpegs - that traffic is actually the DOS attack... yeah, yeah, that's the ticket)
Just wait until mercury delay lines come back into vogue ;)