>...many organizations, particularly in the financial services industry, > have gotten to the point of assuming that their customers' desktops are > compromised.
They should have been assuming that all along. They should assume it even if only a tiny fraction of their customers' desktops are compromised.
> Yes, it is used an awful lot for an awful lot of obnoxious ads... And I can > quickly and easily get rid of those ads just by disabling flash.
> How am I going to get rid of the obnoxious ads written in HTML5?
Privoxy gets rid of allmost all the ads for me, but NoScript does help by blocking any Flash ads that get by Privoxy. Flash also makes it easy to identify useless sites at a glance so that I can take my business elsewhere without wasting time. Without it identifying sites (such as those featured in the article) run by jerks and assholes will be harder.
>...if a plasma, by definition, has enough energy to strip electrons from > the nucleus of an atom, then wouldn't it also have enough energy to break > molecules into their elemental constituents?
Not necessarily.
> Or are some molecular binding forces stronger than the electrical forces > that bind electrons to nuclei?
The DMCA DRM provisions are pernicious (though not as powerful as most here seem to believe). The DMCA "Safe Harbor" provisions are not. Takedowns would exist without them. However, without "Safe Harbor" they would not have to follow a prescribed form, there would be no counter-takedown procedure, there would be no 30 day deadline for filing for infringement, and most important of all, service providers would be liable even if they complied with takedowns. The DMCA Safe Harbor does not expand the rights or powers of copyright owners in any way. On the contrary, it reduces them. Without the DMCA there would be no YouTube.
Unfortunately from what I have seen the DMCA-like statutes proposed in other countries seems to only expand the rights and powers of copyright owners without providing any additional protection for users. Don't let them pass. If that puts you in violation of TRIPS, tough. Withdraw from the damn thing: it's crap. If you must enact a local DMCA, at least make sure it goes no farther than the US one does (and insist that it create a fair use right if you don't already have one and does not reduce it if you do).
> As a former very avid Usenet user, I really can't blame them. The medium is > falling out of favor precisely because most of the groups are filled with > junk.
Then why isn't the Web falling out of favor? Almost all Web pages and most Web forums are also filled with junk.
> I think it just might depend on what groups one is familiar with.
It also depends on who you get your feed from. Some providers are much better at filtering spam than others (with ISPs generally doing no filtering at all)
Why do you feel that Linux requires x86? Debian supports SPARC. I understand wanting to get away from Sun/Oracle hardware, but Linux on the existing SPARC boxes could be an intermediate step.
...for more cache instead of more processors? Think of something with as many transistors as a hex core but with only two cores and the rest used for L1 cache! I'd suggest lots more registers as well, but that would mean giving up on x86.
OMG! People doing things without permission! Unregulated activity!
Oh. Wait. It's "Green". That makes it ok. Only climate denialists ever oppose anything Green. But does Texas subsidize these wind farms? If not they are still evil. It's Texas,after all. We have to find something evil in everything they do.
I know. I bet Texas wind farms kill birds (California ones don't, of course: they are properly regulated).
We all die, of course. It's the end of the world. This is utterly catastrophic and utterly unprecedented. No such thing could ever happen naturally, At no time in the entire history of the planet has erosion or tectonic activity ever ruptured a large oil reservoir. There are no bacteria that metabolize oil and it does not oxidize or decay naturally in any way, and it kills everything it touches. It will float on the surface of the ocean forever, bringing an end to all life.
No it isn't. It's simple, robust, leverages existing technology, and is capable of transfer rates of 1000 Gb/sec.
> A pair of micromirrors will be able to point a laser at any point on the > chip with far smaller seek times than moving the entire chip.
I guess that's why CDs, DVDs, and BluRays aren't spun.
Yours is an interesting approach, but there may be a reason why it has not been implemented for any of the existing optical technologies. The latency would be better than that of spinning media but still far too great for RAM and the improvement might not justify the complexity. After all, the block you need is almost always already in RAM in the buffers anyway.
> Besides, CDs and DVDs are recorded in a spiral, not rings.
Did I mention CDs or DVDs? Think hard disk with a laser instead of a magnetic head. Did you notice that these are magnetic dots?
They'll put a transisitor over each dot and couple it to the dot in some way so that it can be read and written. Then they'll add a matrix of metallization and logic to multiplex access to the transistors. Add decoding logic and drivers and you've got nonvolatile RAM. And your bit density has gone down by an order of magnitude or so. Still very useful, though, if it's fast enough. Nonvolatile RAM with densities and speeds similar to those of DRAM would be a real breakthrough. Add costs per GB similar to those of rotating media and you've got something that will fundamentally change computing.
> They have a storage medium with nothing to read or write it... yet.
Put the dots on a "disk" in rings. Call them "tracks". Spin the "disk" and access the dots by scanning a laser radially so that it can read and write the dots in each "track" sequentially. There just might be some existing technology that could be adapted for this...
> State governments could then add their own changeset to the upstream > (Federal) laws where they can and also maintain their own single cohesive > text as a version controlled document
US state law is not a subset of or derived from Federal law. Read the US Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
> JPL is part of NASA...
Nominally, Yes. In fact, though, JPL is run by CalTech and is much older than NASA.
> ...many organizations, particularly in the financial services industry,
> have gotten to the point of assuming that their customers' desktops are
> compromised.
They should have been assuming that all along. They should assume it even if only a tiny fraction of their customers' desktops are compromised.
> Yes, it is used an awful lot for an awful lot of obnoxious ads... And I can
> quickly and easily get rid of those ads just by disabling flash.
> How am I going to get rid of the obnoxious ads written in HTML5?
Privoxy gets rid of allmost all the ads for me, but NoScript does help by blocking any Flash ads that get by Privoxy. Flash also makes it easy to identify useless sites at a glance so that I can take my business elsewhere without wasting time. Without it identifying sites (such as those featured in the article) run by jerks and assholes will be harder.
> ...if a plasma, by definition, has enough energy to strip electrons from
> the nucleus of an atom, then wouldn't it also have enough energy to break
> molecules into their elemental constituents?
Not necessarily.
> Or are some molecular binding forces stronger than the electrical forces
> that bind electrons to nuclei?
Same force.
No need for electolysis. Just extract it and off you go. Methane, CO2, etc could be used as well.
A word mark is always registered as all upper case. Lower and mixed case are still covered.
Yes, but users of OSs that don't can't understand why anyone would use an OS that doesn't.
"Plain text". That's just a Microsoft Word document with no embedded images or graphs or anything, right?
The DMCA DRM provisions are pernicious (though not as powerful as most here seem to believe). The DMCA "Safe Harbor" provisions are not. Takedowns would exist without them. However, without "Safe Harbor" they would not have to follow a prescribed form, there would be no counter-takedown procedure, there would be no 30 day deadline for filing for infringement, and most important of all, service providers would be liable even if they complied with takedowns. The DMCA Safe Harbor does not expand the rights or powers of copyright owners in any way. On the contrary, it reduces them. Without the DMCA there would be no YouTube.
Unfortunately from what I have seen the DMCA-like statutes proposed in other countries seems to only expand the rights and powers of copyright owners without providing any additional protection for users. Don't let them pass. If that puts you in violation of TRIPS, tough. Withdraw from the damn thing: it's crap. If you must enact a local DMCA, at least make sure it goes no farther than the US one does (and insist that it create a fair use right if you don't already have one and does not reduce it if you do).
> As a former very avid Usenet user, I really can't blame them. The medium is
> falling out of favor precisely because most of the groups are filled with
> junk.
Then why isn't the Web falling out of favor? Almost all Web pages and most Web forums are also filled with junk.
> I think it just might depend on what groups one is familiar with.
It also depends on who you get your feed from. Some providers are much better at filtering spam than others (with ISPs generally doing no filtering at all)
> Microsoft has decided that upon registering for any of their forums, you
> must complete and pass a turing test.
So only AIs that can successfully masquarade as human will be allowed on the "forums"? How will that cut down spam? Who do you think posts most of it?
> I've also been wondering why, given the new poly-core systems, we
> don't see a mix of CPU types in a system.
How would the OS decide which process to assign to which core?
Why do you feel that Linux requires x86? Debian supports SPARC. I understand wanting to get away from Sun/Oracle hardware, but Linux on the existing SPARC boxes could be an intermediate step.
...for more cache instead of more processors? Think of something with as many transistors as a hex core but with only two cores and the rest used for L1 cache! I'd suggest lots more registers as well, but that would mean giving up on x86.
OMG! People doing things without permission! Unregulated activity!
Oh. Wait. It's "Green". That makes it ok. Only climate denialists ever oppose anything Green. But does Texas subsidize these wind farms? If not they are still evil. It's Texas,after all. We have to find something evil in everything they do.
I know. I bet Texas wind farms kill birds (California ones don't, of course: they are properly regulated).
We all die, of course. It's the end of the world. This is utterly catastrophic and utterly unprecedented. No such thing could ever happen naturally, At no time in the entire history of the planet has erosion or tectonic activity ever ruptured a large oil reservoir. There are no bacteria that metabolize oil and it does not oxidize or decay naturally in any way, and it kills everything it touches. It will float on the surface of the ocean forever, bringing an end to all life.
The abstract is not very promising.
> That's idiotic.
No it isn't. It's simple, robust, leverages existing technology, and is capable of transfer rates of 1000 Gb/sec.
> A pair of micromirrors will be able to point a laser at any point on the
> chip with far smaller seek times than moving the entire chip.
I guess that's why CDs, DVDs, and BluRays aren't spun.
Yours is an interesting approach, but there may be a reason why it has not been implemented for any of the existing optical technologies. The latency would be better than that of spinning media but still far too great for RAM and the improvement might not justify the complexity. After all, the block you need is almost always already in RAM in the buffers anyway.
> Besides, CDs and DVDs are recorded in a spiral, not rings.
Did I mention CDs or DVDs? Think hard disk with a laser instead of a magnetic head. Did you notice that these are magnetic dots?
> Let'sLet's use something a tad faster...please?
They'll put a transisitor over each dot and couple it to the dot in some way so that it can be read and written. Then they'll add a matrix of metallization and logic to multiplex access to the transistors. Add decoding logic and drivers and you've got nonvolatile RAM. And your bit density has gone down by an order of magnitude or so. Still very useful, though, if it's fast enough. Nonvolatile RAM with densities and speeds similar to those of DRAM would be a real breakthrough. Add costs per GB similar to those of rotating media and you've got something that will fundamentally change computing.
> They have a storage medium with nothing to read or write it... yet.
Put the dots on a "disk" in rings. Call them "tracks". Spin the "disk" and access the dots by scanning a laser radially so that it can read and write the dots in each "track" sequentially. There just might be some existing technology that could be adapted for this...
> Why the hell they would measure in Tb instead of GB is beyond me though.
Because each dot stores one bit. They are building chips with arrays of dots, not complete hard drives.
...talking someone into telling you who someone else called on their phone is entirely different from breaking into someone's email account.
> State governments could then add their own changeset to the upstream
> (Federal) laws where they can and also maintain their own single cohesive
> text as a version controlled document
US state law is not a subset of or derived from Federal law. Read the US Constitution.
Of course not. I'm actually a cat. The Naming of Cats