> 6. Export Controls - you must comply with teh law.
> Offensive. Why do I as a non-American care about American export laws?
This is completely irrelevant to those not resident in the US and completely superfluous to those who are. It could be replaced by a statement to the effect that it is illegal to do things that are illegal where you are doing them. I don't know where they get this crap: nothing in US law requires such a notice.
> Why should I feel compelled to click "I agree" to something I disagree with?
You disagree that it is illegal to export some things from the US to some destinations? In any case it has no effect on you as you are not in the US, any more than a statement warning me that it is illegal to "deny the holocaust" in France would affect me (there is also about as much point to it).
> However, in my opinion, I side with the Debian leadership (and others who have followed > suit) in forking to avoid this nonsense. Lack of annoying and insulting EULAs is a > trademark of a good Linux distro. After coming this far, why would we of the free > software movement back down on our principles for some silly logos?
I agree, but I find tha matter more silly and sad than offensive.
> The (slashdot) summary really does miss some of the key points, and emphasize the > "fusion containment" aspect, which I doubt anyone takes seriously as a use of this. >... > However, homotopy groups (if I understand it correctly) say that there may be other > solutions to such equations (in nonlinear/dispersive media)...
Nonlinear/dispersive media such as, for example, plasmas?
> Yes, but plasma consists of charged particles which can be trapped by electro-magnetic > fields. Light (in the wave picture at least) is simply an electro-magnetic field, so if > you can tie light in loops theoretically you can also trap the plasma too.
Also, plasma affects the propagation of light in such a way that it may help stabilize the light loop.
> What's worse, 42% did not know and could not exclude a breach, reflecting on the number > of organizations that could potentially be breached without anyone knowing after the > fact.
Perhaps that merely indicates that 42% know that it is impossible to exclude the possibility of an undetected breach with absolute certainty.
There is no need to intermingle the beam controls with the data collection.
And the relatively small amount of ionizing radiation down in the tunnel near the beam tube is certainly not going to affect the computers in the control center on the surface.
The data collection computers have to be on the Net. Data reduction and analysis is being done by a world-wide network of tens of thousands of computers at many different institutions. Setting up a private network is impractical. It is also unnecessary. There are no secrets to protect.
> What scares me is the fact that they pumped in aprox. 4.4 billion euros in this project > and somehow with all that money it seems that they didn't invest enough in security.
How do you know they didn't? There was, after all, no damage.
> I mean, come on. A breach is one thing but "one step away" from one of the core > components is pretty serious.
That's "one step away" according to a newsie. That "one step", if it even existed, probably involved breaking AES or similar.
They do run Linux, and I doubt that the computers that control the beam or the magnets in the detectors are on the Net. Crackers might be able to trash a lot of data but it seems unlikely that they could do any physical damage.
Data has to go in to the computers that control the detectors but it does not need to go into the computers that control the beam. I suspect that it doesn't.
So what? It will work fine (though I don't know that it will do waht you want). It just won't match the rest of your desktop. With few exceptions KDE applications work fine on a Gnome "desktop" and vice-versa.
> The rights do stay with the uploader. But Google needs a license from the uploader to > display the material at all - and that's the purpose of the relevant segment of the TOS.
Such a license is implicit in the act of uploading the material that you know is going to display it. If an explicit license were necessary Usenet would not exist.
I don't see why it matters, though. Surely no one uploads anything important to any of these advertising-supported services.
> We currently cannot predict those variations, and as such, the leap seconds are > determined based on astronomical observation and applied as needed.
I know that, but zoneinfo has to be updated frequently anyway to accomodate the whims of princes.
The consequences of misrepresentation can include damages, attorney's fees, and costs. I believe that under some circumstances there can also be criminal penalties.
Note that in the absence of the DMCA "safe harbor" provision take-down notices could still be sent. However, providers who complied with such notices could still be liable for copyright infringement. YouTube probably could not exist without it.
> Privoxy is a behemoth of less than intuitive rules and I've found it rather cumbersome > to just add a regexp-based substitution that gets applied to every HTTP request I make.
The default configuration in the Debian Privoxy package does exactly what I want. I've never had to touch it.
Slashdot Mirror
> 6. Export Controls - you must comply with teh law.
> Offensive. Why do I as a non-American care about American export laws?
This is completely irrelevant to those not resident in the US and completely superfluous to those who are. It could be replaced by a statement to the effect that it is illegal to do things that are illegal where you are doing them. I don't know where they get this crap: nothing in US law requires such a notice.
> Why should I feel compelled to click "I agree" to something I disagree with?
You disagree that it is illegal to export some things from the US to some destinations? In any case it has no effect on you as you are not in the US, any more than a statement warning me that it is illegal to "deny the holocaust" in France would affect me (there is also about as much point to it).
> However, in my opinion, I side with the Debian leadership (and others who have followed
> suit) in forking to avoid this nonsense. Lack of annoying and insulting EULAs is a
> trademark of a good Linux distro. After coming this far, why would we of the free
> software movement back down on our principles for some silly logos?
I agree, but I find tha matter more silly and sad than offensive.
> Magnetic fields will bend light, which I believe is what this paper was based on.
Not true.
> The (slashdot) summary really does miss some of the key points, and emphasize the ...
> "fusion containment" aspect, which I doubt anyone takes seriously as a use of this.
>
> However, homotopy groups (if I understand it correctly) say that there may be other
> solutions to such equations (in nonlinear/dispersive media)...
Nonlinear/dispersive media such as, for example, plasmas?
> Yes, but plasma consists of charged particles which can be trapped by electro-magnetic
> fields. Light (in the wave picture at least) is simply an electro-magnetic field, so if
> you can tie light in loops theoretically you can also trap the plasma too.
Also, plasma affects the propagation of light in such a way that it may help stabilize the light loop.
Ball lightning?
Sarbanes-Oxley has nothing to do with customers.
> What's worse, 42% did not know and could not exclude a breach, reflecting on the number
> of organizations that could potentially be breached without anyone knowing after the
> fact.
Perhaps that merely indicates that 42% know that it is impossible to exclude the possibility of an undetected breach with absolute certainty.
There is no need to intermingle the beam controls with the data collection.
And the relatively small amount of ionizing radiation down in the tunnel near the beam tube is certainly not going to affect the computers in the control center on the surface.
The data collection computers have to be on the Net. Data reduction and analysis is being done by a world-wide network of tens of thousands of computers at many different institutions. Setting up a private network is impractical. It is also unnecessary. There are no secrets to protect.
> So they want to develop a cross-platform browser.
I see no evidence of that.
> What scares me is the fact that they pumped in aprox. 4.4 billion euros in this project
> and somehow with all that money it seems that they didn't invest enough in security.
How do you know they didn't? There was, after all, no damage.
> I mean, come on. A breach is one thing but "one step away" from one of the core
> components is pretty serious.
That's "one step away" according to a newsie. That "one step", if it even existed, probably involved breaking AES or similar.
They do run Linux, and I doubt that the computers that control the beam or the magnets in the detectors are on the Net. Crackers might be able to trash a lot of data but it seems unlikely that they could do any physical damage.
Data has to go in to the computers that control the detectors but it does not need to go into the computers that control the beam. I suspect that it doesn't.
> The leaked MAC addresses would be those of the computers behind the router...
Or whatever number the admin chooses to supply instead.
So what? It will work fine (though I don't know that it will do waht you want). It just won't match the rest of your desktop. With few exceptions KDE applications work fine on a Gnome "desktop" and vice-versa.
> The vendor has released a patch and risk arises only for systems connected directly to
> the Internet without firewall protection.
Such systems should not be connected to the Internet. Full stop.
> The rights do stay with the uploader. But Google needs a license from the uploader to
> display the material at all - and that's the purpose of the relevant segment of the TOS.
Such a license is implicit in the act of uploading the material that you know is going to display it. If an explicit license were necessary Usenet would not exist.
I don't see why it matters, though. Surely no one uploads anything important to any of these advertising-supported services.
Right. Everyone knows time began 1221005929 seconds ago.
> Legally, thanks to the idiots we elect to congress and the lobbyists who love them, my
> civil clock has to be set to GMT -4 for most of the year.
Legally, you are free to set your own personal clocks however you please.
BTW, while I think that "daylight savings time" is a loony idea, I can't quite figure out which lobbying group you think is responsible for it.
> We currently cannot predict those variations, and as such, the leap seconds are
> determined based on astronomical observation and applied as needed.
I know that, but zoneinfo has to be updated frequently anyway to accomodate the whims of princes.
> All time can be universal (UTC)...no leap-seconds necessary.
Without leap seconds it isn't UTC.
Navigation depends on time. The Navy is very interested in navigation. That's why they established the Naval Observatory in 1830.
USNO employs some of the formost experts on the subject. They are soliciting the opinions of some of the other stakeholders.
Just distribute TAI, publish zoneinfo with leap seconds included, and calculate whatever you need for local use or display as needed.
> There should be a planned algorithm that kicks in, and the simplest one that actually
> does the job should be used.
There is none. The rate of rotation of the Earth is slightly irregular in a not entirely predictable way.
> I don't think I even own a time keep device where this level of accuracy matters.
> Perhaps my GPS?
Definitely your GPS. It cares about nanoseconds.
The consequences of misrepresentation can include damages, attorney's fees, and costs. I believe that under some circumstances there can also be criminal penalties.
Note that in the absence of the DMCA "safe harbor" provision take-down notices could still be sent. However, providers who complied with such notices could still be liable for copyright infringement. YouTube probably could not exist without it.
> Privoxy is a behemoth of less than intuitive rules and I've found it rather cumbersome
> to just add a regexp-based substitution that gets applied to every HTTP request I make.
The default configuration in the Debian Privoxy package does exactly what I want. I've never had to touch it.