As soon as I can use a mouse and keyboard of my choosing, check my email between rounds, patch the problems in the game, play with 64 other people simultaneously, browse the websites of my favorite gaming clans between games, talk to my teammates with my voice using the headset of my choice, edit a spreadsheet after the game, program the device myself between games, mod the games to my heart's content, download all the homebrew games I want, and swap out the parts when they fail or I want better performance, then I'll play just console games. It's a different market. Deal with it.
That's a good thing. The more early adopters of gee-whiz, big-dollar, high-margin cards like this there are, the more cash the companies have for operations. The more cash they have from the cutting-edge market, the more they can crank up production runs on cheap mainstream cards at lower margins.
IOW, the people who buy this card as soon as it comes out are subsidizing your next video card purchase if you're not one of them.
The maps tend to be stored in main system memory. The graphics tend to be stored in graphics memory. You indeed need extra memory capacity, processor speed, and memory bandwidth for some of the post processing. However, resolution is not post-processing. Higher resolution means more pixels. More pixels means more RGB values in memory. More pixels also means more things to post-process. A higher polygon count and more textures can use more video memory, too.
Actually, there are many kinds of auctions. Accepting the highest bid by a certain time is one type. Lowering the price a particular amount at regular intervals until the first person present bids is another. An auction with no set ending time is a third.
Webster's definition says nothing about a time limit.
While in general that's true, there is a concept known as promissory estoppel. IANAL, so I can't say it can be applied here or give legal advice to those who feel wronged by this turn of events.
The basic concept is that if someone promises you something and you act in good faith based on that promise, then they are bound to keep the promise. I seriously doubt that people can[t hold eBay responsible for past auctions or auctions they haven't listed yet. Auctions listed before this announcement that have yet to close might be an issue.
I think Craigslist's business model is fine. Although they're registered as a for-profit business, they have no desire to become a large commercial enterprise. They're doing very well at not becoming a large commercial enterprise, I think.
Cornell isn't the government. Please make sure you're using a current definition of the law.
The DoJ has the text of the statute, a discussion of the case law surrounding the statute, and discussion of the definitions used by the courts of key terms. Take a look at this.
See, for example, the reference to America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc. on page 9 for what courts might consider unauthorized access. Also, the provisions in the law about leading to physical injury do not mean the fraud or computer abuse must be the direct cause or even that that harm was intentional.
Indirect causes and reckless damages are included, so indirectly causing physical harm or death to someone through fraudulent use of the computer and exceeding authorized access fits the DOJ's position quite well.
Since the DoJ is where federal prosecutors work, their understanding of the law, both statutory and case law, is what the federal prosecutor is likely to use. Even if the theories held by the DoJ are wrong, that doesn't mean this one prosecutor is a maverick acting outside the mainstream of the system. If the understanding presented by the DoJ isn't accepted by the courts, it's the DoJ as a whole that's wrong.
Actually, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's current wording, as I read it, does cover this. The woman wasn't just causing emotional distress. She specifically suggested suicide to a young, impressionable girl she knew was being treated for serious depression. There's a section in the CF&AA for using a computer to induce or encourage harm being brought to someone. If the prosecutor's not using that portion of the law, then that's an issue.
I'm mostly interested because I have a similar delineation some of my friend came up with for me: radical moderate. I have some ideas that people think are really far left and some they think are really far right, but for the most part I think we're best off when the legislatures are out of session.
Political philosophy, political history, and military history are hobbies of mine. Finding someone who's dedicated to a line between two parties where it happens to fall just to be different wouldn't mean much to me, but would be just as sad as meeting the party stalwarts on either side. Finding someone who really thinks about issues and is willing to stand by either major party's position when they are right but not when they are wrong is a really pleasing thing for me.
Even if we don't agree which positions are right, you and I at least agree that they're not all bundled up within one party. That means more than what many people think it does, because once people make that assessment they can start to think about alternatives to the two-party system.
I never said they break deep, investigative pieces. Most of their magazine is fluff, as you say. They're willing to tell both sides of the fluff, at least.
I very seriously doubt 30 million people use a computer, an Internet connection, and a false identity in order to induce a minor to commit suicide. If so, I say let them all rot based on the new laws that will be passed in reaction to this case.
Many people on Slashdot seem to think that lawyers are magical fairies who are supposed to know everything or that one lawyer trying something sets a precedent. Law school teaches mainly three things: research, the basic legal philosophy of the jurisdiction, and how to debate within the rules and norms of the court. That's it. It's always up to one lawyer to find a statute, case law, or common law they think they can apply. It's always up to the other to find other laws and precedents or to shoot holes in the theories of the opposition. It's up to the judge to decide who is closer to right.
Everyone here seems to think that this case going forward sets a bad legal precedent. Maybe it does set a bad social precedent, but that's different from a legal precedent. A legal precedent isn't set until a judge or jury makes a decision. If you want some other zealous prosecutor to be at a disadvantage in this situation, you shouldn't be wanting this one not to file charges. What you should be wanting is this case to go forward and the judge to smack the prosecutor's case down flatly. Maybe the jury letting the woman off because they don't see how the law applies to what she did would work, too. The defense convincing the judge the law as worded is unconstitutional, unenforceable, or only useful for malicious prosecution would work, too.
IANAL, but I have a decent lay understanding that charges being filed is not a conviction, and that the courts exist precisely so that one zealous prosecutor doesn't get to make decisions that incarcerate people.
If an attacker is able to guess the query id and the source port, the attacker is able to send a fake response, which will be cached by the DNS server.
It'd also work if the attacker was able to sniff that packet in the first place, of course, and with a much higher probability.
DNS over TCP for queries as well as zone transfers has long been an option for most DNS servers. Enabling that as the default would seem to be a secure enough fix, although with more overhead than UDP.
I haven't taken the time to see what this new recommended fix does. Anyone have details on how it makes the query response harder to fake?
The Democrats control the House and split the Senate with the Republicans. That this plan to protect those who enable the Executive branch to spy on innocent Americans passed handily in both houses of Congress is the fault of the Democrats as much or more than the Republicans. Yet expect most who disagree with it to blame it all on Bush and call for Democrats to win the Presidency and all seats in Congress.
Actually, the trend is that both the very uneducated and the very educated tend to be Democrats, and the moderately educated (trade school, junior college, four-year public) tend to be Republicans.
When I've read and taken part in discussions about why this is, I've seen and heard everything from "The Democrats prey on the poor, trading social programs for votes" to "The very educated understand the theory better but the somewhat educated are more pragmatic, while the uneducated like the sound of the theories the Democrats cite without sufficient knowledge to refute them".
Also, you are very much confusing education with intelligence. It's quite possible to be intelligent and undereducated or to be relatively stupid and still attain a nominally sufficient amount of education.
I do hear the US left calling for nationalizing healthcare pretty much every day. Many of them want to ban the use of petroleum-derived motor fuels altogether, long before we have any suitable alternatives. How's that for lefties? They want to redistribute so much wealth that people who can work but won't get TVs, DVD players, cars, and video game consoles -- all things which I don't recall being necessary to a healthy life.
I have friends who are honestly downright socialist and communist, some who are entirely libertarian, and a few who are nearly fascist. I assure you I can tell the difference. Very few people on broadcast TV fit any of those extremes, but some on satellite TV and on the radio do.
It's clear that Katie Couric, for example, supports the tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, government as the cure for all ills hippie mold, but isn't afraid to compromise her principles with the checks she gets from CBS. The folks at CNN try to lean as far left as possible on the air, probably to offer an alternative to the bias in the other direction at Fox.
Most of the rest are more subtle, but you'll see many news outlets pound into the ground the dead horse that is G. W. Bush's 25% approval rating, but won't ever mention the 14% approval rating of the predominantly Democratic House of Representatives. Thankfully, Time Magazine is still independent and objective enough to tell both sides.
I think the concern in Sweden is about traffic that crosses the borders but which has one endpoint in the country. If you can spy on any traffic crossing the borders, that means that Swedes who communicate internationally or who communicate with other Swedes using international communications infrastructure are just as eligible.
Is there some protection for two Swedes in Sweden who use, for example, Slashdot to communicate?
Monitoring of foreign communications has never been a technical issue in the US within my lifetime, nor a legal issue within my father's lifetime. It's the domestic spying we really need to crack down on first. Then we worry about whether or not we can stop our government from spying on everyone else, or if that's even a good idea.
I'm not sure how a discussion about how out of touch the politicians who pass laws like this have to be and how full-time professional politicians are bad for society gets modded off-topic, even if it is formatted as a typical joke.
The whole problem with a law like this is that people are getting paid to sit around full-time and think about how to have an impact on the lives of others. Many of the problems in the world are because politicians have too much impact on the daily lives of others. Obstructionism in government preserves the freedom of the people.
I'm going to question your general position rather than your specific one. If you're a "dedicated political centrist", there are a number of ways to get there. Some make more sense than others.
I'm not trying to bash you personally even if some of my questions seem pointed. I'd just like to know, and maybe get some people (including you and me) to think about what being a dedicated political centrist means.
Do you just see which way the wind blows, and pick your beliefs from the most popular ones regardless of their merit? If so, are you a politician yourself?
Is there some belief you have that a large enough group of people with opposing views who have some overlap in the middle must be pointing to the truth with that overlap?
Is the US really aligned so specifically along a line that your separately developed personal views actually fall on that line by chance?
Are those who argue for each side of the political divide equally right and equally persuasive?
Are you just too intellectually lazy to pick a side yet still willing to work to be dedicated to that position?
Do you support centrist policies specifically because both sides screw things up so badly that you'd like to make sure the more radical portions of either side never get enough votes to do anything major?
Is there some specific advantage to you, personally, in maintaining the current political climate instead of seeing it move one way or the other?
"The State of Our Union is Strong": We're all going down the tubes together, and there's no way any of you are getting out of this mess without me!
"We're going to balance the budget": Get ready to be taxed into starvation!
"We're going to have a strong military": The best defense is a powerful, not to mention constantly invoked, offense.
"It's time to start paying down the national debt": I'm a loon who thinks our resources actually merit our credit rating.
"The New Deal is over": Rather than scaling back overburdened entitlement programs which have bred generations of dependency and training our poor to be productive workers, we're going to plunge welfare recipients into utter poverty the likes of which this country hasn't seen in a century, and then jail them for vagrancy.
"The rich aren't paying their fair share": They're paying much more not only in raw dollar figures but as a percentage than anyone else, but screw them because there are more poor voters than rich ones.
"We're going to close the tax loopholes":...for everyone who's getting out of taxes I don't have to worry about paying. We'll then give big "tax incentives" to people like me.
I think a lot of the people involved in the mainstream media are pretty far left, but those who are doing actual journalism usually try to be objective. What they say tends to lean slightly left, but the tone with which they report makes it clear which news they support.
One distinction people should more often make is between reporters and pundits. Reporters are supposed to give the news, and pundits comment on the news. Some people are being given the chance to speak as reporters when they are actually commenting, and others are openly admitting they are commentators. It's a line that should be very clear and sometimes isn't. That accounts for some of the claims of bias, although if you have mostly partisan pundits on one side it doesn't bode well for your overall impartiality.
Slashdot Mirror
As soon as I can use a mouse and keyboard of my choosing, check my email between rounds, patch the problems in the game, play with 64 other people simultaneously, browse the websites of my favorite gaming clans between games, talk to my teammates with my voice using the headset of my choice, edit a spreadsheet after the game, program the device myself between games, mod the games to my heart's content, download all the homebrew games I want, and swap out the parts when they fail or I want better performance, then I'll play just console games. It's a different market. Deal with it.
That's a good thing. The more early adopters of gee-whiz, big-dollar, high-margin cards like this there are, the more cash the companies have for operations. The more cash they have from the cutting-edge market, the more they can crank up production runs on cheap mainstream cards at lower margins.
IOW, the people who buy this card as soon as it comes out are subsidizing your next video card purchase if you're not one of them.
The FireGL is intended for workstations. This is a consumer card. TFS didn't mention that, but it's a distinction worth making.
The maps tend to be stored in main system memory. The graphics tend to be stored in graphics memory. You indeed need extra memory capacity, processor speed, and memory bandwidth for some of the post processing. However, resolution is not post-processing. Higher resolution means more pixels. More pixels means more RGB values in memory. More pixels also means more things to post-process. A higher polygon count and more textures can use more video memory, too.
Actually, there are many kinds of auctions. Accepting the highest bid by a certain time is one type. Lowering the price a particular amount at regular intervals until the first person present bids is another. An auction with no set ending time is a third.
Webster's definition says nothing about a time limit.
While in general that's true, there is a concept known as promissory estoppel. IANAL, so I can't say it can be applied here or give legal advice to those who feel wronged by this turn of events.
The basic concept is that if someone promises you something and you act in good faith based on that promise, then they are bound to keep the promise. I seriously doubt that people can[t hold eBay responsible for past auctions or auctions they haven't listed yet. Auctions listed before this announcement that have yet to close might be an issue.
I think Craigslist's business model is fine. Although they're registered as a for-profit business, they have no desire to become a large commercial enterprise. They're doing very well at not becoming a large commercial enterprise, I think.
Cornell isn't the government. Please make sure you're using a current definition of the law.
The DoJ has the text of the statute, a discussion of the case law surrounding the statute, and discussion of the definitions used by the courts of key terms. Take a look at this.
See, for example, the reference to America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc. on page 9 for what courts might consider unauthorized access. Also, the provisions in the law about leading to physical injury do not mean the fraud or computer abuse must be the direct cause or even that that harm was intentional.
Indirect causes and reckless damages are included, so indirectly causing physical harm or death to someone through fraudulent use of the computer and exceeding authorized access fits the DOJ's position quite well.
Since the DoJ is where federal prosecutors work, their understanding of the law, both statutory and case law, is what the federal prosecutor is likely to use. Even if the theories held by the DoJ are wrong, that doesn't mean this one prosecutor is a maverick acting outside the mainstream of the system. If the understanding presented by the DoJ isn't accepted by the courts, it's the DoJ as a whole that's wrong.
Actually, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's current wording, as I read it, does cover this. The woman wasn't just causing emotional distress. She specifically suggested suicide to a young, impressionable girl she knew was being treated for serious depression. There's a section in the CF&AA for using a computer to induce or encourage harm being brought to someone. If the prosecutor's not using that portion of the law, then that's an issue.
I'm mostly interested because I have a similar delineation some of my friend came up with for me: radical moderate. I have some ideas that people think are really far left and some they think are really far right, but for the most part I think we're best off when the legislatures are out of session.
Political philosophy, political history, and military history are hobbies of mine. Finding someone who's dedicated to a line between two parties where it happens to fall just to be different wouldn't mean much to me, but would be just as sad as meeting the party stalwarts on either side. Finding someone who really thinks about issues and is willing to stand by either major party's position when they are right but not when they are wrong is a really pleasing thing for me.
Even if we don't agree which positions are right, you and I at least agree that they're not all bundled up within one party. That means more than what many people think it does, because once people make that assessment they can start to think about alternatives to the two-party system.
I never said they break deep, investigative pieces. Most of their magazine is fluff, as you say. They're willing to tell both sides of the fluff, at least.
I very seriously doubt 30 million people use a computer, an Internet connection, and a false identity in order to induce a minor to commit suicide. If so, I say let them all rot based on the new laws that will be passed in reaction to this case.
Many people on Slashdot seem to think that lawyers are magical fairies who are supposed to know everything or that one lawyer trying something sets a precedent. Law school teaches mainly three things: research, the basic legal philosophy of the jurisdiction, and how to debate within the rules and norms of the court. That's it. It's always up to one lawyer to find a statute, case law, or common law they think they can apply. It's always up to the other to find other laws and precedents or to shoot holes in the theories of the opposition. It's up to the judge to decide who is closer to right.
Everyone here seems to think that this case going forward sets a bad legal precedent. Maybe it does set a bad social precedent, but that's different from a legal precedent. A legal precedent isn't set until a judge or jury makes a decision. If you want some other zealous prosecutor to be at a disadvantage in this situation, you shouldn't be wanting this one not to file charges. What you should be wanting is this case to go forward and the judge to smack the prosecutor's case down flatly. Maybe the jury letting the woman off because they don't see how the law applies to what she did would work, too. The defense convincing the judge the law as worded is unconstitutional, unenforceable, or only useful for malicious prosecution would work, too.
IANAL, but I have a decent lay understanding that charges being filed is not a conviction, and that the courts exist precisely so that one zealous prosecutor doesn't get to make decisions that incarcerate people.
"this woman committed the acts prohibited by the wording of the law"
I'll be worried when they can beat us at Dodge the EMP Blast.
If an attacker is able to guess the query id and the source port, the attacker is able to send a fake response, which will be cached by the DNS server.
It'd also work if the attacker was able to sniff that packet in the first place, of course, and with a much higher probability.
DNS over TCP for queries as well as zone transfers has long been an option for most DNS servers. Enabling that as the default would seem to be a secure enough fix, although with more overhead than UDP.
I haven't taken the time to see what this new recommended fix does. Anyone have details on how it makes the query response harder to fake?
The Democrats control the House and split the Senate with the Republicans. That this plan to protect those who enable the Executive branch to spy on innocent Americans passed handily in both houses of Congress is the fault of the Democrats as much or more than the Republicans. Yet expect most who disagree with it to blame it all on Bush and call for Democrats to win the Presidency and all seats in Congress.
Actually, the trend is that both the very uneducated and the very educated tend to be Democrats, and the moderately educated (trade school, junior college, four-year public) tend to be Republicans.
When I've read and taken part in discussions about why this is, I've seen and heard everything from "The Democrats prey on the poor, trading social programs for votes" to "The very educated understand the theory better but the somewhat educated are more pragmatic, while the uneducated like the sound of the theories the Democrats cite without sufficient knowledge to refute them".
Also, you are very much confusing education with intelligence. It's quite possible to be intelligent and undereducated or to be relatively stupid and still attain a nominally sufficient amount of education.
I do hear the US left calling for nationalizing healthcare pretty much every day. Many of them want to ban the use of petroleum-derived motor fuels altogether, long before we have any suitable alternatives. How's that for lefties? They want to redistribute so much wealth that people who can work but won't get TVs, DVD players, cars, and video game consoles -- all things which I don't recall being necessary to a healthy life.
I have friends who are honestly downright socialist and communist, some who are entirely libertarian, and a few who are nearly fascist. I assure you I can tell the difference. Very few people on broadcast TV fit any of those extremes, but some on satellite TV and on the radio do.
It's clear that Katie Couric, for example, supports the tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, government as the cure for all ills hippie mold, but isn't afraid to compromise her principles with the checks she gets from CBS. The folks at CNN try to lean as far left as possible on the air, probably to offer an alternative to the bias in the other direction at Fox.
Most of the rest are more subtle, but you'll see many news outlets pound into the ground the dead horse that is G. W. Bush's 25% approval rating, but won't ever mention the 14% approval rating of the predominantly Democratic House of Representatives. Thankfully, Time Magazine is still independent and objective enough to tell both sides.
I think the concern in Sweden is about traffic that crosses the borders but which has one endpoint in the country. If you can spy on any traffic crossing the borders, that means that Swedes who communicate internationally or who communicate with other Swedes using international communications infrastructure are just as eligible.
Is there some protection for two Swedes in Sweden who use, for example, Slashdot to communicate?
Monitoring of foreign communications has never been a technical issue in the US within my lifetime, nor a legal issue within my father's lifetime. It's the domestic spying we really need to crack down on first. Then we worry about whether or not we can stop our government from spying on everyone else, or if that's even a good idea.
I'm not sure how a discussion about how out of touch the politicians who pass laws like this have to be and how full-time professional politicians are bad for society gets modded off-topic, even if it is formatted as a typical joke.
The whole problem with a law like this is that people are getting paid to sit around full-time and think about how to have an impact on the lives of others. Many of the problems in the world are because politicians have too much impact on the daily lives of others. Obstructionism in government preserves the freedom of the people.
I'm going to question your general position rather than your specific one. If you're a "dedicated political centrist", there are a number of ways to get there. Some make more sense than others.
I'm not trying to bash you personally even if some of my questions seem pointed. I'd just like to know, and maybe get some people (including you and me) to think about what being a dedicated political centrist means.
Do you just see which way the wind blows, and pick your beliefs from the most popular ones regardless of their merit? If so, are you a politician yourself?
Is there some belief you have that a large enough group of people with opposing views who have some overlap in the middle must be pointing to the truth with that overlap?
Is the US really aligned so specifically along a line that your separately developed personal views actually fall on that line by chance?
Are those who argue for each side of the political divide equally right and equally persuasive?
Are you just too intellectually lazy to pick a side yet still willing to work to be dedicated to that position?
Do you support centrist policies specifically because both sides screw things up so badly that you'd like to make sure the more radical portions of either side never get enough votes to do anything major?
Is there some specific advantage to you, personally, in maintaining the current political climate instead of seeing it move one way or the other?
You just need to know how to translate.
"The State of Our Union is Strong": We're all going down the tubes together, and there's no way any of you are getting out of this mess without me!
"We're going to balance the budget": Get ready to be taxed into starvation!
"We're going to have a strong military": The best defense is a powerful, not to mention constantly invoked, offense.
"It's time to start paying down the national debt": I'm a loon who thinks our resources actually merit our credit rating.
"The New Deal is over": Rather than scaling back overburdened entitlement programs which have bred generations of dependency and training our poor to be productive workers, we're going to plunge welfare recipients into utter poverty the likes of which this country hasn't seen in a century, and then jail them for vagrancy.
"The rich aren't paying their fair share": They're paying much more not only in raw dollar figures but as a percentage than anyone else, but screw them because there are more poor voters than rich ones.
"We're going to close the tax loopholes": ...for everyone who's getting out of taxes I don't have to worry about paying. We'll then give big "tax incentives" to people like me.
Preferably they'd be local to their constituency, rather than local to DC.
I think a lot of the people involved in the mainstream media are pretty far left, but those who are doing actual journalism usually try to be objective. What they say tends to lean slightly left, but the tone with which they report makes it clear which news they support.
One distinction people should more often make is between reporters and pundits. Reporters are supposed to give the news, and pundits comment on the news. Some people are being given the chance to speak as reporters when they are actually commenting, and others are openly admitting they are commentators. It's a line that should be very clear and sometimes isn't. That accounts for some of the claims of bias, although if you have mostly partisan pundits on one side it doesn't bode well for your overall impartiality.