In what possible way is this serious news of a technical nature, or anything that would interest the sort of people this website is supposed to be aimed at?
Many of us are charged with making technology foolproof. As to the old adage, file this one under the know-thine-enemy dept.
Plus, we can rant about how some people want one call to the government to fix all their problems.
Much easier to control for exposure to chemicals, diseases, and other toxins in a lab than it is in free ranging animals....
You'd think so, but farm-raised fish are often full of all kinds of questionable crap, when they seemingly ought to be healthier, being raised in a controlled environment and all.
...there's really only one TLD because everyone has to buy the same name from all of them to protect themselves. (Especially as you lose a trademark if you don't protect it.)
Not in this case..xxx is descriptive. Like the.coop,.museum, etc. TLD's, these are actually going in the right direction.
There's no reason one can't have a harvard.edu, a harvard.farm and a harvard.xxx, all pointing to different businesses - that's actually desirable. IIRC, USPTO has a few thousand trademark categories.
Facebook has fewer guns than the Nazis did - and the Nazis may have been enabled by information but they executed their plans by force, which is what one of the parties here (not Facebook) is doing.
But, anyway, I were Facebook, my response would be to disable the accounts of the Hamburg users and apologize for not having the desire to customize the platform to every locality's unique laws. Facebook could potentially be up against tens of thousands of micro-customizations here which would be hell to QA.
Let the people sort out with their government how important this sort of prosecution is to them, and let the local networks take back their old job.
I didn't choose to make use of BS&S's lines, Linux.org did.
Yes, but if linux.org had a choice of providers (say that competition wasn't regulated out of existence) then why would they ever stick with BS&S in this case?
When there's choice, the providers have to play fairly.
But millions of end-users making informed choices can't be better than whatever scheme a few central planners in DC dream up, right?
I can't start my own ISP because the barrier to entry is impossibly high and the current ISPs have state or city-granted monopolies on internet/phone/cable service.
Oh, wait, I know, instead of repealing these bad laws, let's make more bad laws to paper over them!
mobile computing is about 5-10 years behind desktop computing
And it always will be, unless somebody devises as way to provide 15A of power to a mobile device, and a way to dissipate that sort of heat.
Now, we may eventually reach a state where it just doesn't matter - everybody will have enough computing power on their phone to raytrace a 4K HD stream in realtime and they will reach a natural equilibrium where it just doesn't make sense to make faster chips for desktop computers. Or, we might see such great Internet pervasiveness that everybody just has thin-clients and computes on a CPU farm, but until either of those things happen, desktops will be faster than mobile devices.
In two years, PS3-like graphics will be insufficient for the desktop and console market, and we will be in the same situation.
Never underestimate the low-end. Imagine a dongle with an HDMI plug on one end that just plugs into a TV set, but inside it has a chip that can do PS3-level graphics, WiFi for downloading games, Bluetooth for controllers, and enough flash to cache them.
Most HDMI ports can provide 150mA at 5V, which is minimal for this sort of application, but within sight in the next several years.
It's not the spending that's the issue it's the refusal to collect the taxes necessary to maintain what we have.
You can't get blood from a stone. On an inflation-adjusted basis, real incomes have gone down steadily since the early 70's. How do you expect to raise taxes as incomes are falling?
Around here the infrastructure has been crumbling since at least the late 70s
I don't know where you are, but the big transfer of wealth from the middle and lower class to the upper class started with the conversion to a fiat currency in 1971. That triggered the stagflation of the 70's and the economy hasn't ever really recovered, just been papered over one way or the other.
you put an infected machine on the internet, and your connection is disabled until you have clearly demonstrated that you have fixed the problem.
I used to advocate a messaging system whereby _anybody_ could send a (PGP) signed 'disable' message to an IP address to get the machine turned off at the router. Whether this message got propagated or acted upon would depend on the level of trust in the signer - not unlike BGP. In today's NAT world it might need to be a bit more complex than I'd thought about in the 90s.
But I fear the time has passed for Internet governance to do this without the government barging in, and then it would be too tempting to shut down he political opposition, 'terrists' or the like.
It's possible to run a safe Windows machine, although it takes more knowledge than it does for iOS or Linux say.
I doubt it. There was a story yesterday that 60% of malware found in the wild has no AV-software coverage.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the operating systems the infected computers were running.
Ah, we're all about socializing the externalities for the corporations these days. How much of this bill do you think Microsoft will pick up? How about 'none' so they have no real incentive to secure their products?
Heck, it justifies a larger FBI, so they'll probably give them a metal for being so cooperative.
What an embarrassing thing to have to admit to your cell mates...
He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"
And I said, "Stealing garbage." And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, "And creating a nuisance."
And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.
I AM a kind, responsible prof who tailors the tests to the course material.
Kudos. I wish your fellow profs were all so diligent. Your leading by example will help with that.
Re:Marine infantry says that ...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Personally I don't think it's useful to have a separate Air Force. The Constitution doesn't authorize an Air Force (or a standing Army for that matter...). I realize there were no airplanes in 1789, but reading the Navy's mission as 'boats' instead of 'the permanent, expensive, high-tech war assets' is missing the conceptual point.
The Army is pretty clearly the ground infantry. Large numbers of lightly-trained soldiers to send into close combat. That's different than the Marines, as I don't think a Navy with only sailors makes any sense. The Marines are better trained and intended to be a long-term force. The Army is intended to be trained up in 6 weeks and sent off to War, while their replacements are being trained.
I realize the Air Force came up through the Army, but a mistake was made in 1947 by creating a new branch, rather than telling the Navy that they had craft in the water and air (and eventually space), now that the War was over.
Given that, do you think if the Navy had the air assets that they could do a proper job of supporting the Marine Corps mission?
Slashdot Mirror
...what happens when this super slippery meets that super sticky gecko tape
Quantum levitation. In the old days we'd tie buttered bread to the top of a cat.
Best not to set it in a Brownian motion generator, say a hot cup of tea.
In what possible way is this serious news of a technical nature, or anything that would interest the sort of people this website is supposed to be aimed at?
Many of us are charged with making technology foolproof. As to the old adage, file this one under the know-thine-enemy dept.
Plus, we can rant about how some people want one call to the government to fix all their problems.
I highly doubt that getting a Facebook account qualifies as a legal contract
What do you think binds you when you agree to the ToS?
Much easier to control for exposure to chemicals, diseases, and other toxins in a lab than it is in free ranging animals....
You'd think so, but farm-raised fish are often full of all kinds of questionable crap, when they seemingly ought to be healthier, being raised in a controlled environment and all.
...there's really only one TLD because everyone has to buy the same name from all of them to protect themselves. (Especially as you lose a trademark if you don't protect it.)
Not in this case. .xxx is descriptive. Like the .coop, .museum, etc. TLD's, these are actually going in the right direction.
There's no reason one can't have a harvard.edu, a harvard.farm and a harvard.xxx, all pointing to different businesses - that's actually desirable. IIRC, USPTO has a few thousand trademark categories.
Come on, it is almost 2012, everyone should have understood a long time ago that people don't search for content based on the domain name.
But PageRank scores up links with the search term in the domain name, so, yeah, they do, even if not on purpose.
Facebook has fewer guns than the Nazis did - and the Nazis may have been enabled by information but they executed their plans by force, which is what one of the parties here (not Facebook) is doing.
But, anyway, I were Facebook, my response would be to disable the accounts of the Hamburg users and apologize for not having the desire to customize the platform to every locality's unique laws. Facebook could potentially be up against tens of thousands of micro-customizations here which would be hell to QA.
Let the people sort out with their government how important this sort of prosecution is to them, and let the local networks take back their old job.
That would be awesome. Unfortunately, in the real world, we will never have choice in a natural monopoly situation
If it's natural, then it doesn't need to be enforced.
OR have end-users making informed choices in ANY situation.
Why would *you* make such bad choices?
I didn't choose to make use of BS&S's lines, Linux.org did.
Yes, but if linux.org had a choice of providers (say that competition wasn't regulated out of existence) then why would they ever stick with BS&S in this case?
When there's choice, the providers have to play fairly.
But millions of end-users making informed choices can't be better than whatever scheme a few central planners in DC dream up, right?
I can't start my own ISP because the barrier to entry is impossibly high and the current ISPs have state or city-granted monopolies on internet/phone/cable service.
Oh, wait, I know, instead of repealing these bad laws, let's make more bad laws to paper over them!
P.S. You win the thread.
mobile computing is about 5-10 years behind desktop computing
And it always will be, unless somebody devises as way to provide 15A of power to a mobile device, and a way to dissipate that sort of heat.
Now, we may eventually reach a state where it just doesn't matter - everybody will have enough computing power on their phone to raytrace a 4K HD stream in realtime and they will reach a natural equilibrium where it just doesn't make sense to make faster chips for desktop computers. Or, we might see such great Internet pervasiveness that everybody just has thin-clients and computes on a CPU farm, but until either of those things happen, desktops will be faster than mobile devices.
In two years, PS3-like graphics will be insufficient for the desktop and console market, and we will be in the same situation.
Never underestimate the low-end. Imagine a dongle with an HDMI plug on one end that just plugs into a TV set, but inside it has a chip that can do PS3-level graphics, WiFi for downloading games, Bluetooth for controllers, and enough flash to cache them.
Most HDMI ports can provide 150mA at 5V, which is minimal for this sort of application, but within sight in the next several years.
Every single penny of every type of tax you pay ever only covers 38% of government spending.
What? No. States need to have balanced budgets.
On the Federal level you're spot on.
Conservatives love a good sales tax because it is nice and regressive.
All taxes are regressive. Google 'embedded taxes' to move beyond the high-school economics concept of what 'regressive tax' means.
It's not the spending that's the issue it's the refusal to collect the taxes necessary to maintain what we have.
You can't get blood from a stone. On an inflation-adjusted basis, real incomes have gone down steadily since the early 70's. How do you expect to raise taxes as incomes are falling?
Around here the infrastructure has been crumbling since at least the late 70s
I don't know where you are, but the big transfer of wealth from the middle and lower class to the upper class started with the conversion to a fiat currency in 1971. That triggered the stagflation of the 70's and the economy hasn't ever really recovered, just been papered over one way or the other.
The party at the national level is very clear on not being willing to raise federal taxes.
How many of them have come out against quantitative easing or the $16T in created-money loans? Those prices at the grocery store? Inflation tax.
what could have been achieved and what would have already been achieved by now?
We'd have an extra small sun in our sky, as of last year. Actually, I saw it pretty clearly next to the moon tonight.
It only really has to be "good enough" for the vast majority of people.
Wait, people watch shows for the story and acting?
you put an infected machine on the internet, and your connection is disabled until you have clearly demonstrated that you have fixed the problem.
I used to advocate a messaging system whereby _anybody_ could send a (PGP) signed 'disable' message to an IP address to get the machine turned off at the router. Whether this message got propagated or acted upon would depend on the level of trust in the signer - not unlike BGP. In today's NAT world it might need to be a bit more complex than I'd thought about in the 90s.
But I fear the time has passed for Internet governance to do this without the government barging in, and then it would be too tempting to shut down he political opposition, 'terrists' or the like.
It's possible to run a safe Windows machine, although it takes more knowledge than it does for iOS or Linux say.
I doubt it. There was a story yesterday that 60% of malware found in the wild has no AV-software coverage.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the operating systems the infected computers were running.
Ah, we're all about socializing the externalities for the corporations these days. How much of this bill do you think Microsoft will pick up? How about 'none' so they have no real incentive to secure their products?
Heck, it justifies a larger FBI, so they'll probably give them a metal for being so cooperative.
What an embarrassing thing to have to admit to your cell mates...
He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"
And I said, "Stealing garbage." And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, "And creating a nuisance."
And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.
I AM a kind, responsible prof who tailors the tests to the course material.
Kudos. I wish your fellow profs were all so diligent. Your leading by example will help with that.
Personally I don't think it's useful to have a separate Air Force. The Constitution doesn't authorize an Air Force (or a standing Army for that matter...). I realize there were no airplanes in 1789, but reading the Navy's mission as 'boats' instead of 'the permanent, expensive, high-tech war assets' is missing the conceptual point.
The Army is pretty clearly the ground infantry. Large numbers of lightly-trained soldiers to send into close combat. That's different than the Marines, as I don't think a Navy with only sailors makes any sense. The Marines are better trained and intended to be a long-term force. The Army is intended to be trained up in 6 weeks and sent off to War, while their replacements are being trained.
I realize the Air Force came up through the Army, but a mistake was made in 1947 by creating a new branch, rather than telling the Navy that they had craft in the water and air (and eventually space), now that the War was over.
Given that, do you think if the Navy had the air assets that they could do a proper job of supporting the Marine Corps mission?
Good points, but not just that, but it kicks over large parts of the Bill of Rights.
It at least touches on freedom of assembly, quartering of troops, unreasonable search, self-incrimination, and the rights of the people.
In short, it has no place in a Free society. But I think that was given up when FDR accepted the Supreme Court's surrender.
Huh? What the hell is a boot?
With those hosers it's usually a boot a Molson, eh?
Some people's English...