"I would no more disclose the personal information of third parties to you, than I would disclose the information you expect to entrust to me as your employee to a third party. Since, clearly, the material sent to me via social networking would constitute the former, that isn't going to happen. How, since we are on the subject, could you ever trust someone who would turn over sensitive information like an account password to a third party like that? Woudn't you be afraid that they would then give the interviewer at their -next- job interview the password to their accounts you provided for them on -your- computers?"
Because -only- Linux users, of all the technologies, factions, religions, and political persuastions, have a vocal I.S.A. contingent. 8-)
Lets see, who started with the ad hominim here? Is that why linux detractors have a reputation for being such insufferable sanctimouious assholes as well?
Glittering generalities and broad-brush dickishness help how exactly?
I regularly tell people who want to run a particular Windows application on a Linux system that they will be much happier if they make their system dual-boot.
The fact that you regularly see people do this or that has no bearing on what the best answer is to particular problems.
The -best- answer to most virtual desktop questions is -actually- to close some damn windows. I watch people clutter up their desktop with crap, then want extra virtual desktops so that the can spread their clutter. Finally they decry "why is my computer so slow".
Learn to use the minimize button for christs sake. Don't ask for multiple desktops when you always maximize the windows you are looking at. Learn to do one thing at a time. etc.
The average virtual desktop wanter has so many tabs open that they cannot find their way back to what they need. They don't understand, or never use winkey-D because they have too many tabs open to find anything fast. The solution they come up wiht is spreading out and grouping a-la virtual desktops. But then they just clutter those up.
Advice must suit the situation and, quite frankly, "virtual desktops on windows" is almost always the inferior option.
No, Linux won't solve that. Nothing will solve that. They'll just start getting frustrated that they now cannot find the tab they want on the desktop they want because the same factor that prevents them from finding their work on one desktop will not help them find it on five.
If they really agreed a desktop pager would be in the OS.
The call you cite goes back to Win 2k, but 11 years later we still have no official Microsoft support. If you follow your own citation and become "historically aware" -and- read the call description, you will realize that this call -does- create a desktop, but its intended use is to create the desktop you get when you have logged in using control-alt-delete etc.
That is, it doesn't create a "virtual desktop" within the existing framework of display objects for an active user with an active desktop, it creates "a new desktop" as the instance of the regular old desktop that the user gets when he logs in.
You will also notice that it allocates "the desktop" from "the shared heap common to all desktops". This is an example of how the Window archetecture useses common intermingled resources all the way to the bone, as I stated. One of hte reasons that Wndows is so poor at security is that these common resource pools let programs "peek over the fence" or "toss data over the fence" at each other.
So contemplate how "CreateDesktop" and "CreateVirtualDesktop" would be different calls... Blindly providing citations to similar seeming API entry points does not a platfrom technology prove.
Because there is no company "behind linux" pushing it into "marketing". This creates a catch-22 where people don't develop the "popularist crap" for linux because there is no market share, and "average" people don't buy the linux systems because there is no "crapware" for it.
Also, of course, since the big makers (Dell, Gateway, etc) are enjoined from selling linux-equipped desktop machines under penalty of losing their Microsoft OEM licenses, there are no "sales figures" for Linux Desktop Systems period. Microsoft "owns" the channels from which Linux Desktop Systems would emerge into actual conciousness.
Finally, -every- topic, user community, position, and theory has its share of insufferable sanctimonious assholes. Your use of the "Or" in your missive established a false dichotomy. You don't have to be -wrong- to be an I.S.A. 8-)
The best answer to questions often invalidate the question's assumptions. For instance (while daring hyperbole) "How can I cut down on beating my wife?" is a flawed question because it presumes that a "lesser" quantity of wife beating will make it okay.
In applicaiton to current circumstances, trying to patch a "multiple desktop" abstraction onto Windows is tehcnically probelematic because the underlying OS is -not- intended to support that modality. It can be done, but it has some very negative corner cases and it consists of making the display "lie about" the underlying condition of the system.
To compare and contrast:
Since the various windows in a X-server implementation are -factually- distinct all the way back to the OS-level process abstraction, the practical mechanics of de-realizing the window (withdrawing it from the display without destroying it) is a real, first-class operation. This is true even before considering things like staring multiple X-servers on different virtual terminals etc. That is, under linux you can make semantic -or- programatic desktops, or both, to acheive the "multiple desktop" effect.
Since Windows uses a common event queue to post information to all windows, and that event queue goes all the way to the bone in the OS (it is the same event queue that, say, asynchronous IO events are returned with), the windows cannot be de-realized, they can only be hidden. So in this case the "multiple desktops" are illusory. This may be good enough for casual work, but it is terrible if you need to actually isolate actions between the actual "desktops". One of the primary symptoms of this is that in the Windows virtual desktops, windows "on desktop X" can spontaniously reassert themselves onto whatever desktop (e.g. desktop Y) you are seeming to view. Hidden modal windows can seize things up oddly and so forth.
So while the original poster, it may safely be assumed, was being troll-like in tone, he wasn't particularly incorrect.
(Of course the identical troll, with no explination, occured to me when I read the main article... I just held it in... because someone already had it covered... 8-)
When "stuck with" windows I often acheive multiple windows desktops by running multiple QEMU windows instances.
I also use Wine.
Both of these solutions often mean that when a windows app fails catostrophically I can just kill the whole windows instance at once wihtout interfeering with my other work.
You can do the same thing with VmWare hardware partitioning.
I also look to migrate away from windows one application at a time.
We (The United States of America) "went metric" in the seventies. We just have an infinite grace period for compliance and no penalties for non-compliance. It's super simple now.... chek it out...
It's a case of who watches the watchers. When you corrupt an organization it is best done in-depth and it is most successfully done from the top.
We "Americans" (e.g. the United States of part, but we are working diligently on spreading our scheme to the rest of America) have a system of Checks and Balances. That is it doesn't have to Balance if you can make sure nobody Checks. We use this system for nearly every purpose. It's nice to see Europe following our lead. Or perhaps they deeded it to us as some point, which doesn't matter, we will take the credit.
As to this being the end of democracy, well you are using the wrong definition: Democracy is the means by which we ensure we are governed -no- -better- that we deserve.
Seems to be working out pretty much "as expected" here.
There was a book I read some years ago, perhaps someone can recall it's title. The main character is a computer programmer who is enlisted to revolutionize space combat.
Someone has built a ship that basically has rail-gun-ish cannons down one side and thrusters down the other. The ship is full-to-brimming with cannon balls (innert spherical metal etc). The goal is to synchronize the thrusters and cannon so that the ship can create a "virtual surface" (non-stationary warped palnar segment) of moving balls in space which would be launched into the predicted paths of moving ships. The composite delta-v of the masses and the ships would be terrific, but unlike missles and guided municians, there would be no energy output useful to detect the actual palcement and path of the sheets.
Ship-to-ship kenetic bombardment could actually be pretty-damn effective.
(The plucky resistance couldn't afford to make missles and guided weapons, and even if they could, they didn't have the necessary industrial complex. But they could make these 20lb ballbearings. The programmers challenge was to get all the rail guns to fire in concert with eachother and the thrusters, the original software sucked because if there was a mis-load or jam the entire volley would not fire etc. Good reading. Wish I could remember the title.)
Read the Honor Herrington books. They are basically the Horatio Hornblower books, but in space.
With "fast ships" the time lags experienced by a viewer of a combat means that the combat is over before you can join. So it all will recede back to the age of sail need to know your enemies and guess their tactics. Sure there will be atomic pumped X-Ray lasers but they will need to be detonated from physical missles except in the closest of quarters, and will have issues very like manuvering and fireing cannon.
The oribital mechanics will work very much like issues of wind since chaning direction is incremental when in a stellar orbit. Ships will want the favorible lower-to-the-star orbits so they can sweep out degrees of arc faster, which will be very like having the favorible position "up wind". etc.
The books are quite well written, but there will be a lot of very tense "long" periods of waiting.
I hear this all the time, largely from people who have never been "medically inconvenienced" by anything.
It is true that something has to kill you, sure. But you know, most people imagine death like a light-switch. Something that happens all the sudden while you are busy doing other things.
The truth is that light-switch deaths are rare and usually the result of external trauma.
Real death. Normal gruling death, takes time. And death from things like colon cancer and the side effects from morbid health problems can take from minutes of anony to months of agony intersperced wiht profound inconvenience.
Once you get hemiroids and the other effects of age you will one day go "oh....!" but by then you will be well on the road to your chosen gruesome death.
For instance, smoking... sure... something's gotta kill you. But it isn't going to be like "I took that last drag and it was one too many" it's more "oh, so a year ago I had to have my larynx chopped out and now I eat with a tube and cannot swallow so I always feel like I am drowning in my own spit, but at least I can look forward to immune system colapse soon so I can -actually- drown in my own lung-phlegm." (not actually happening to me etc, just an example, in case you didn't understand.)
Yep... something's got to kill you... might as well be (whatever you don't care to fix just now) there little wippersnapper. 8-)
His innocence died and he became aware of actual death as his fate, so it'd kind of be like the movie DOA. You have been posioned and you are as good as dead, now is just the waiting. 8-)
The only thing Jimmy Carter did wrong was -not- assinate Nixon.
Nixon, behind the scenes, negotiated wiht the Iranian "hostage takers" to have them -keep- the hostages in order to sabatoge Jimmy Carter's presidency. Note how the hostages were released on the day of R.R.'s inaguration.
Yes, this is the same Nixon who arranged to have the Viet Nam war extended to undermine the sitting president so he could get elected instead. Once elected he had "no choice" but to follow through on his promises to a foriegn power and so six-plus years of dead Americans.
Thing is, if the insurance companies use the base actuarial data to set the "good price" and then charge premiums on "bad actors" they only win.
Your Bad Presumption(tm) is that the monitoring will be used to -lower- prices. This is known bad because of the language. The "fair pay" insurance -starts- at the "good driver cost" and only gets worse with measurement.
The system is, simply, a scam to cherry pick people to overbill, while providing a "see, we even warned you, the evidence is right there in that dingus" justification for taking people and charging them -more- than their actuarial risk assignment.
Sure, -IFF- good driving could reduce your payment below your actuarial designation then this would be a formula for cascading failure. As it is stated, however, its a creaming strategy for company profit taking.
If you have a problme with the MAFIAA you don't fix your problem by then _joining_ the MAFIAA.
Quite frankly the problem with UEFI is that it is broken in it's _founding_ _assumptions_. Namly it assumes that the hardware manufacturer or BIOS writer is the "correct" person to have the boot-keys to the device. That is, it assumes that the computer shoudl not be controlled by its rightful owner.
If the system were even in the correct neighborhood of "correct" the system would require that the root key would be constructed by the owner of each device and that said owner would then have a means to exclusively sign the boot loaders of their choice. This would not be hard to do in any technological way.
Once this was done, then when _I_, as the owner of my device, were to buy Windows 8, or Red Hat, or build-my-own loader for some other purpose, or add memtest86+ to my box, I would use my key to sign my installs to prevent tampering.
The UEFI assumption is that I souldn't be able to sign my system to prevent tampering by, say, Micorosoft by securing my system with my own keys and then running Windows as I see fit.
So yea, I don't see why Red Hat should "join" (e.g. buy in with a hefty cash bribe) UEFI for the right to be one of the anti-user "decider" guys when they beleive the apprach is broken by design.
Who runs the signing service is the _entire_ point. Saying that is like saying "forgetting the death and distruction for a moment" in the second paragraph on your "what is wrong with nuclear weapons" paper.
Nobody has _any_ problems wiht signed boot loaders if the people who OWN THE COMPUTER have are the people who get to sign the code.
The problem is that the people who make the bios are the ones who get to sign the code.
So forgetting who will have the keys to your car, and house, you can just sleep tight with only being able to start your car or enter or exit your home with express permissions from the on-star lady okay?
That's not hyperbole. The "we own the keys to your computer" would be very like requiring you to have a body scan before you can enter your car or house so that it is known that you are not carying contraband (say that copy of [your religious text here] or any person who isn't on the "approved rider or resident" list maintianed by General Motors).
The "who gets to decide these things for you" is the only and entire problem.
When you put the session ID in a cookie you are compliant with my point of _not_ putting data in the query string (stuff after the "?" in the URL).
Then you double-down by ensuring that there are no GET pages/requests that allow any sort of data write. By this I mean, for example, wiring up your CGI such that if REQUEST=GET then you scrub our or fail all requests that could save data anywhere in your system.
Finally (though not clearly mentioned) the retrivial of most key non-public data should start with the POST of a form requesting that data as opposed to a GET request with a query. This isn't usually all that frame-friendly but it is much better as a security model. Worst case, you should use a subsession ID that has a lifetime of only a few seconds (tops 30 or so) that is created in response to the post and dies after one use so you can pass it through a nested GET.
But the short rule is "if you wouldn't want it published in google search results, it should not be data that can be reached via a GET query string".
I never said it was news. I just notice that nobody(*) does it.
(*) obviously some people do follow the rule, but if you pay attention to the URL bar well, the thing hemorrhages information. Combine that with the logging and session ID and whatnot and the use of the query-part of the URL becomes a liability to privacy and safety.
ASIDE: mid 200x, I designed the web-performance measurement section of a device that was sold to cell phone providers in order for them to monitor the throughput of their data networks. I may have been scared by that experience. But having been under the hood of countless web pages (the tool had to fetch pages from yahoo and espn and whatever what hot that month) the use of GET where POST should have been used is endemic, particularly by large providers. Most web designers never read the HTTP standard and when they see that the FORM tag can use GET or POST in the response, and they _must_ pick one, they default to GET for whatever reason. I suspect that the reason is that it is one character shorter, which in today's measured internet service world, can really add up.
_eventually_ we will use the following system for DNS:
(1) A DHT that anybody can add records too. There can be as many entries for MacDonalds.com as people care to add.
(2) DHT participants will use rotating port numbers as both servers and clients.
(3) Most participants will encrypt all inter-hash-node traffic.
(4) "Real" (e.g. useful) DNS entries will actually be found by Public (e.g. PGP) Key Fingerprint (or even full key).
(5) Key or Key Fingerprint records will automatically be pruned and rejected from the DHT if the are not signed by the public key referenced by the fingerprint or key they claim to represent.
(6) A key record may contain aliases to alias itself out to names like MacDonalds.com
(7) in most cases the so-called "top level domains" will be meaningless and you will only see MacDonalds.
(at this point, nobody has to "control" the DNS records. name records are advisory and signed records are of "higher quality".
(8) Banks and real institutions will regularly use QRCode, and physical tokens, and Apps, and App Tokens to pass PGP Key Fingerprint style host-part URLs around. (And maybe people will start using their home-pages and bookmarks for their original purpose, to keep an online repository of links useful to themselves as opposed to others.)
(9) "Smart" clients will require the information comming from a site to be signed with the key issued to the DNS record.
(10) There will be key echanges built in, by RFC or by common use of X- headers, to most non-trivial network requests such that each respondent will be provided wiht the key to use to encrypt the message body to the peer. In particular it will be de-regur to encrypt the first request sent via a key-located DNS record with the body encrypted uing the key from the DNS record. The first message will include his own public key in the encrypted body and the server will respond by creating a session with the associated key(s) and so forth.
(11) Someone will introduce "keyed:" as a transfer prototype where it is essentially defined as identical to "http:" but the entire message stream is encrypted in both directions, the initiator must determine the key to use before transit (see the DHT and other public key repositories) and any message may include a key to set/change the key for future messages in that stream.
(12) Trusted sub-communities will form inside corporations and associations where inter-DHT-participants will pass initialization keys around on QRCode business cards. The sub communities will export their record groups but selectively filter imports and only from "high quality" peers. This last bit will be to prevent DOS "malicious record submission" attacks. Eventualy this will be used to get around the government firewalls as getting a 3x5 card into the hands of one dissident will be enough to establish a fresh sub-community on a wholly different set of transit particulars over the same system.
(13) Modems will make a limited come-back to provide the out-of-band handshakes for final key validation etc....
Oh it will take a while, and the first implementations will be slapped onto the side of the bittorrent "magnet link" facility and so on, but one abuse at a time the free part of the internet will adopt it, and then some cutting edges companies will jump on thinking to "capture" the "fringe market" and it will all come to pass.
I like inventing systems like this, and this system would be almost trivial to code using existing bittorrent DHTs etc, but coding them is tedious, so the first implementation(s( are left as a excercise for the reader.
SOPA plans to control the DNS, Belarus seems ready to do without it completely since there is no top-level DNS server for them to consult if this policy goes through.
Its a matter of degree... you know... how much baby is expected to be in any quanta of discarded water.
Slashdot Mirror
And go to jail as in most states as recording a conversation without the other person's knowledge is often a felony.
Also many companies have trade secrets and such so filming or recording on their premesis is trespass.
And lord help you if they do any classified work for any government.
But yea, that cameral thing is a *great* idea...
"I would no more disclose the personal information of third parties to you, than I would disclose the information you expect to entrust to me as your employee to a third party. Since, clearly, the material sent to me via social networking would constitute the former, that isn't going to happen. How, since we are on the subject, could you ever trust someone who would turn over sensitive information like an account password to a third party like that? Woudn't you be afraid that they would then give the interviewer at their -next- job interview the password to their accounts you provided for them on -your- computers?"
Because -only- Linux users, of all the technologies, factions, religions, and political persuastions, have a vocal I.S.A. contingent. 8-)
Lets see, who started with the ad hominim here? Is that why linux detractors have a reputation for being such insufferable sanctimouious assholes as well?
Glittering generalities and broad-brush dickishness help how exactly?
I regularly tell people who want to run a particular Windows application on a Linux system that they will be much happier if they make their system dual-boot.
The fact that you regularly see people do this or that has no bearing on what the best answer is to particular problems.
The -best- answer to most virtual desktop questions is -actually- to close some damn windows. I watch people clutter up their desktop with crap, then want extra virtual desktops so that the can spread their clutter. Finally they decry "why is my computer so slow".
Learn to use the minimize button for christs sake. Don't ask for multiple desktops when you always maximize the windows you are looking at. Learn to do one thing at a time. etc.
The average virtual desktop wanter has so many tabs open that they cannot find their way back to what they need. They don't understand, or never use winkey-D because they have too many tabs open to find anything fast. The solution they come up wiht is spreading out and grouping a-la virtual desktops. But then they just clutter those up.
Advice must suit the situation and, quite frankly, "virtual desktops on windows" is almost always the inferior option.
No, Linux won't solve that. Nothing will solve that. They'll just start getting frustrated that they now cannot find the tab they want on the desktop they want because the same factor that prevents them from finding their work on one desktop will not help them find it on five.
If they really agreed a desktop pager would be in the OS.
The call you cite goes back to Win 2k, but 11 years later we still have no official Microsoft support. If you follow your own citation and become "historically aware" -and- read the call description, you will realize that this call -does- create a desktop, but its intended use is to create the desktop you get when you have logged in using control-alt-delete etc.
That is, it doesn't create a "virtual desktop" within the existing framework of display objects for an active user with an active desktop, it creates "a new desktop" as the instance of the regular old desktop that the user gets when he logs in.
You will also notice that it allocates "the desktop" from "the shared heap common to all desktops". This is an example of how the Window archetecture useses common intermingled resources all the way to the bone, as I stated. One of hte reasons that Wndows is so poor at security is that these common resource pools let programs "peek over the fence" or "toss data over the fence" at each other.
So contemplate how "CreateDesktop" and "CreateVirtualDesktop" would be different calls... Blindly providing citations to similar seeming API entry points does not a platfrom technology prove.
Because there is no company "behind linux" pushing it into "marketing". This creates a catch-22 where people don't develop the "popularist crap" for linux because there is no market share, and "average" people don't buy the linux systems because there is no "crapware" for it.
Also, of course, since the big makers (Dell, Gateway, etc) are enjoined from selling linux-equipped desktop machines under penalty of losing their Microsoft OEM licenses, there are no "sales figures" for Linux Desktop Systems period. Microsoft "owns" the channels from which Linux Desktop Systems would emerge into actual conciousness.
Finally, -every- topic, user community, position, and theory has its share of insufferable sanctimonious assholes. Your use of the "Or" in your missive established a false dichotomy. You don't have to be -wrong- to be an I.S.A. 8-)
Windows: for those who just don't know when quitting is the better option... (I think this is the new Microsoft slogan for Windows 8... 8-)
The best answer to questions often invalidate the question's assumptions. For instance (while daring hyperbole) "How can I cut down on beating my wife?" is a flawed question because it presumes that a "lesser" quantity of wife beating will make it okay.
In applicaiton to current circumstances, trying to patch a "multiple desktop" abstraction onto Windows is tehcnically probelematic because the underlying OS is -not- intended to support that modality. It can be done, but it has some very negative corner cases and it consists of making the display "lie about" the underlying condition of the system.
To compare and contrast:
Since the various windows in a X-server implementation are -factually- distinct all the way back to the OS-level process abstraction, the practical mechanics of de-realizing the window (withdrawing it from the display without destroying it) is a real, first-class operation. This is true even before considering things like staring multiple X-servers on different virtual terminals etc. That is, under linux you can make semantic -or- programatic desktops, or both, to acheive the "multiple desktop" effect.
Since Windows uses a common event queue to post information to all windows, and that event queue goes all the way to the bone in the OS (it is the same event queue that, say, asynchronous IO events are returned with), the windows cannot be de-realized, they can only be hidden. So in this case the "multiple desktops" are illusory. This may be good enough for casual work, but it is terrible if you need to actually isolate actions between the actual "desktops". One of the primary symptoms of this is that in the Windows virtual desktops, windows "on desktop X" can spontaniously reassert themselves onto whatever desktop (e.g. desktop Y) you are seeming to view. Hidden modal windows can seize things up oddly and so forth.
So while the original poster, it may safely be assumed, was being troll-like in tone, he wasn't particularly incorrect.
(Of course the identical troll, with no explination, occured to me when I read the main article... I just held it in... because someone already had it covered... 8-)
I agree whole-heartedly about using linux.
When "stuck with" windows I often acheive multiple windows desktops by running multiple QEMU windows instances.
I also use Wine.
Both of these solutions often mean that when a windows app fails catostrophically I can just kill the whole windows instance at once wihtout interfeering with my other work.
You can do the same thing with VmWare hardware partitioning.
I also look to migrate away from windows one application at a time.
So... not a troll.
About nine iPods are lost a year, or nine-too-few are lost a year, I'm not sure which...
If we made our teenagers more/less dilligent with their stuff the Content Industry would be all square now right?
We (The United States of America) "went metric" in the seventies. We just have an infinite grace period for compliance and no penalties for non-compliance. It's super simple now.... chek it out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States /doh!
The word "basically" is improper in your last sentence. It should be removed, or replaced with the word "provably".
See..grammar natzi-ism -can- be used to advance the dialog... 8-)
It's a case of who watches the watchers. When you corrupt an organization it is best done in-depth and it is most successfully done from the top.
We "Americans" (e.g. the United States of part, but we are working diligently on spreading our scheme to the rest of America) have a system of Checks and Balances. That is it doesn't have to Balance if you can make sure nobody Checks. We use this system for nearly every purpose. It's nice to see Europe following our lead. Or perhaps they deeded it to us as some point, which doesn't matter, we will take the credit.
As to this being the end of democracy, well you are using the wrong definition: Democracy is the means by which we ensure we are governed -no- -better- that we deserve.
Seems to be working out pretty much "as expected" here.
There was a book I read some years ago, perhaps someone can recall it's title. The main character is a computer programmer who is enlisted to revolutionize space combat.
Someone has built a ship that basically has rail-gun-ish cannons down one side and thrusters down the other. The ship is full-to-brimming with cannon balls (innert spherical metal etc). The goal is to synchronize the thrusters and cannon so that the ship can create a "virtual surface" (non-stationary warped palnar segment) of moving balls in space which would be launched into the predicted paths of moving ships. The composite delta-v of the masses and the ships would be terrific, but unlike missles and guided municians, there would be no energy output useful to detect the actual palcement and path of the sheets.
Ship-to-ship kenetic bombardment could actually be pretty-damn effective.
(The plucky resistance couldn't afford to make missles and guided weapons, and even if they could, they didn't have the necessary industrial complex. But they could make these 20lb ballbearings. The programmers challenge was to get all the rail guns to fire in concert with eachother and the thrusters, the original software sucked because if there was a mis-load or jam the entire volley would not fire etc. Good reading. Wish I could remember the title.)
Read the Honor Herrington books. They are basically the Horatio Hornblower books, but in space.
With "fast ships" the time lags experienced by a viewer of a combat means that the combat is over before you can join. So it all will recede back to the age of sail need to know your enemies and guess their tactics. Sure there will be atomic pumped X-Ray lasers but they will need to be detonated from physical missles except in the closest of quarters, and will have issues very like manuvering and fireing cannon.
The oribital mechanics will work very much like issues of wind since chaning direction is incremental when in a stellar orbit. Ships will want the favorible lower-to-the-star orbits so they can sweep out degrees of arc faster, which will be very like having the favorible position "up wind". etc.
The books are quite well written, but there will be a lot of very tense "long" periods of waiting.
I hear this all the time, largely from people who have never been "medically inconvenienced" by anything.
It is true that something has to kill you, sure. But you know, most people imagine death like a light-switch. Something that happens all the sudden while you are busy doing other things.
The truth is that light-switch deaths are rare and usually the result of external trauma.
Real death. Normal gruling death, takes time. And death from things like colon cancer and the side effects from morbid health problems can take from minutes of anony to months of agony intersperced wiht profound inconvenience.
Once you get hemiroids and the other effects of age you will one day go "oh....!" but by then you will be well on the road to your chosen gruesome death.
For instance, smoking... sure... something's gotta kill you. But it isn't going to be like "I took that last drag and it was one too many" it's more "oh, so a year ago I had to have my larynx chopped out and now I eat with a tube and cannot swallow so I always feel like I am drowning in my own spit, but at least I can look forward to immune system colapse soon so I can -actually- drown in my own lung-phlegm." (not actually happening to me etc, just an example, in case you didn't understand.)
Yep... something's got to kill you... might as well be (whatever you don't care to fix just now) there little wippersnapper. 8-)
His innocence died and he became aware of actual death as his fate, so it'd kind of be like the movie DOA. You have been posioned and you are as good as dead, now is just the waiting. 8-)
The only thing Jimmy Carter did wrong was -not- assinate Nixon.
Nixon, behind the scenes, negotiated wiht the Iranian "hostage takers" to have them -keep- the hostages in order to sabatoge Jimmy Carter's presidency. Note how the hostages were released on the day of R.R.'s inaguration.
Yes, this is the same Nixon who arranged to have the Viet Nam war extended to undermine the sitting president so he could get elected instead. Once elected he had "no choice" but to follow through on his promises to a foriegn power and so six-plus years of dead Americans.
See http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/23/the-gop-history-of-hostage-taking/ and start at the Nixon Legacy. (Not the best citation, but the easiest for me to look up right now.)
Thing is, if the insurance companies use the base actuarial data to set the "good price" and then charge premiums on "bad actors" they only win.
Your Bad Presumption(tm) is that the monitoring will be used to -lower- prices. This is known bad because of the language. The "fair pay" insurance -starts- at the "good driver cost" and only gets worse with measurement.
The system is, simply, a scam to cherry pick people to overbill, while providing a "see, we even warned you, the evidence is right there in that dingus" justification for taking people and charging them -more- than their actuarial risk assignment.
Sure, -IFF- good driving could reduce your payment below your actuarial designation then this would be a formula for cascading failure. As it is stated, however, its a creaming strategy for company profit taking.
If you have a problme with the MAFIAA you don't fix your problem by then _joining_ the MAFIAA.
Quite frankly the problem with UEFI is that it is broken in it's _founding_ _assumptions_. Namly it assumes that the hardware manufacturer or BIOS writer is the "correct" person to have the boot-keys to the device. That is, it assumes that the computer shoudl not be controlled by its rightful owner.
If the system were even in the correct neighborhood of "correct" the system would require that the root key would be constructed by the owner of each device and that said owner would then have a means to exclusively sign the boot loaders of their choice. This would not be hard to do in any technological way.
Once this was done, then when _I_, as the owner of my device, were to buy Windows 8, or Red Hat, or build-my-own loader for some other purpose, or add memtest86+ to my box, I would use my key to sign my installs to prevent tampering.
The UEFI assumption is that I souldn't be able to sign my system to prevent tampering by, say, Micorosoft by securing my system with my own keys and then running Windows as I see fit.
So yea, I don't see why Red Hat should "join" (e.g. buy in with a hefty cash bribe) UEFI for the right to be one of the anti-user "decider" guys when they beleive the apprach is broken by design.
Say What?
Who runs the signing service is the _entire_ point. Saying that is like saying "forgetting the death and distruction for a moment" in the second paragraph on your "what is wrong with nuclear weapons" paper.
Nobody has _any_ problems wiht signed boot loaders if the people who OWN THE COMPUTER have are the people who get to sign the code.
The problem is that the people who make the bios are the ones who get to sign the code.
So forgetting who will have the keys to your car, and house, you can just sleep tight with only being able to start your car or enter or exit your home with express permissions from the on-star lady okay?
That's not hyperbole. The "we own the keys to your computer" would be very like requiring you to have a body scan before you can enter your car or house so that it is known that you are not carying contraband (say that copy of [your religious text here] or any person who isn't on the "approved rider or resident" list maintianed by General Motors).
The "who gets to decide these things for you" is the only and entire problem.
When you put the session ID in a cookie you are compliant with my point of _not_ putting data in the query string (stuff after the "?" in the URL).
Then you double-down by ensuring that there are no GET pages/requests that allow any sort of data write. By this I mean, for example, wiring up your CGI such that if REQUEST=GET then you scrub our or fail all requests that could save data anywhere in your system.
Finally (though not clearly mentioned) the retrivial of most key non-public data should start with the POST of a form requesting that data as opposed to a GET request with a query. This isn't usually all that frame-friendly but it is much better as a security model. Worst case, you should use a subsession ID that has a lifetime of only a few seconds (tops 30 or so) that is created in response to the post and dies after one use so you can pass it through a nested GET.
But the short rule is "if you wouldn't want it published in google search results, it should not be data that can be reached via a GET query string".
I never said it was news. I just notice that nobody(*) does it.
(*) obviously some people do follow the rule, but if you pay attention to the URL bar well, the thing hemorrhages information. Combine that with the logging and session ID and whatnot and the use of the query-part of the URL becomes a liability to privacy and safety.
ASIDE: mid 200x, I designed the web-performance measurement section of a device that was sold to cell phone providers in order for them to monitor the throughput of their data networks. I may have been scared by that experience. But having been under the hood of countless web pages (the tool had to fetch pages from yahoo and espn and whatever what hot that month) the use of GET where POST should have been used is endemic, particularly by large providers. Most web designers never read the HTTP standard and when they see that the FORM tag can use GET or POST in the response, and they _must_ pick one, they default to GET for whatever reason. I suspect that the reason is that it is one character shorter, which in today's measured internet service world, can really add up.
_eventually_ we will use the following system for DNS:
(1) A DHT that anybody can add records too. There can be as many entries for MacDonalds.com as people care to add.
(2) DHT participants will use rotating port numbers as both servers and clients.
(3) Most participants will encrypt all inter-hash-node traffic.
(4) "Real" (e.g. useful) DNS entries will actually be found by Public (e.g. PGP) Key Fingerprint (or even full key).
(5) Key or Key Fingerprint records will automatically be pruned and rejected from the DHT if the are not signed by the public key referenced by the fingerprint or key they claim to represent.
(6) A key record may contain aliases to alias itself out to names like MacDonalds.com
(7) in most cases the so-called "top level domains" will be meaningless and you will only see MacDonalds.
(at this point, nobody has to "control" the DNS records. name records are advisory and signed records are of "higher quality".
(8) Banks and real institutions will regularly use QRCode, and physical tokens, and Apps, and App Tokens to pass PGP Key Fingerprint style host-part URLs around. (And maybe people will start using their home-pages and bookmarks for their original purpose, to keep an online repository of links useful to themselves as opposed to others.)
(9) "Smart" clients will require the information comming from a site to be signed with the key issued to the DNS record.
(10) There will be key echanges built in, by RFC or by common use of X- headers, to most non-trivial network requests such that each respondent will be provided wiht the key to use to encrypt the message body to the peer. In particular it will be de-regur to encrypt the first request sent via a key-located DNS record with the body encrypted uing the key from the DNS record. The first message will include his own public key in the encrypted body and the server will respond by creating a session with the associated key(s) and so forth.
(11) Someone will introduce "keyed:" as a transfer prototype where it is essentially defined as identical to "http:" but the entire message stream is encrypted in both directions, the initiator must determine the key to use before transit (see the DHT and other public key repositories) and any message may include a key to set/change the key for future messages in that stream.
(12) Trusted sub-communities will form inside corporations and associations where inter-DHT-participants will pass initialization keys around on QRCode business cards. The sub communities will export their record groups but selectively filter imports and only from "high quality" peers. This last bit will be to prevent DOS "malicious record submission" attacks. Eventualy this will be used to get around the government firewalls as getting a 3x5 card into the hands of one dissident will be enough to establish a fresh sub-community on a wholly different set of transit particulars over the same system.
(13) Modems will make a limited come-back to provide the out-of-band handshakes for final key validation etc. ...
Oh it will take a while, and the first implementations will be slapped onto the side of the bittorrent "magnet link" facility and so on, but one abuse at a time the free part of the internet will adopt it, and then some cutting edges companies will jump on thinking to "capture" the "fringe market" and it will all come to pass.
I like inventing systems like this, and this system would be almost trivial to code using existing bittorrent DHTs etc, but coding them is tedious, so the first implementation(s( are left as a excercise for the reader.
Trivial details may vary.
SOPA plans to control the DNS, Belarus seems ready to do without it completely since there is no top-level DNS server for them to consult if this policy goes through.
Its a matter of degree... you know... how much baby is expected to be in any quanta of discarded water.