I specifically said you have a right to drive ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE LAND. I specifically said you need a license to DRIVE ON A PUBLIC ROAD for the exact fact that the SAFETY OF OTHERS IS A QUESTION OF YOUR ABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY.
Where, from that, did you get that I said you had a right to drive on a public road?
How many people will die in long car trips because they'd rather drive 19 hours than get in this silly contraption that's going to do nothing to make them safer from being strangled by the shoulder strap on a laptop bag?
I mean, seriously, the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters. They weren't carrying guns or explosives. They were using what they could get through security at the time, and guns and most explosives were already banned on flights. A reasonably fit and determined group of men could garrote passengers with their shoe strings for crying out loud.
You do not make airplanes safer by making people fly cold and naked. You might make them safer by putting armed air marshals on the flights. You do make them safer by making the cockpit secure. You don't make a stadium more secure by having people killed while tailgating before the game rather than in the plastic seats. You might make it more secure by posting snipers and dogs all over the place. You will make it more secure by intercepting electronic communications of known threats and infiltrating the terrorist groups with live, wetware agents to prevent the attacks.
One agency that could help with this on a grand scale gets short shrift because they also deal with Latino relatives of legal immigrants. ICE could, if allowed and properly funded, take a good swipe at keeping foreign terrorists out. They are largely hamstrung because we don't have a sensible guest worker visa program. We'd have a lot fewer people who welcomed illegal immigrants if it was easier for good, honest people to come here and work legally with proper documentation.
As for domestic terrorists, we can't do a whole lot about that until they have raised probable cause unless we all want to live as perpetual criminal suspects. I'd rather be at risk of someone committing a crime against me in a free country than live in a prison without walls to prevent it.
The irony of this is, of course, that DHS is an executive department under the Democrat President and you're blaming Republicans for what they are doing just because the cabinet was reorganized under a Republican.
You do have a right to drive. You just need to be properly licensed to do it on designated public property. You can drive all you want on your own property without a license, should you own enough to operate a motor vehicle on it. For most people there's little difference. It's a matter of other people and their property being (reasonably) safe around you when you're on public property operating your vehicle that requires a license.
Actually, 822, 2822, and 5322 all three specifically allow for it. There were standards for the Internet Messaging Protocol and such before SMTP and RFCs 821 and 822. There were also other non-ARPAnet email systems before 1982.
You are completely correct that To: accepts a list by the current standards for Internet email. The merits of that decision are debatable, but the problem isn't really the number of people allowed in the To: field as people using the To: field for both primary and secondary recipients or naming dozens of primary recipients rather than using BCC or a mailing list package. That's the real shame.
SMTP doesn't know "BCC". SMTP knows "RCPT TO". The MUA knows "BCC" and "RCPT TO" both because it speaks SMTP and also knows the mail content format for TO, FROM, CC, and REPLY TO headers. BCC is an extra version of CC that adds more RCPT TO requests to the SMTP session but doesn't add a header like CC does.
Unfortunately, since so many implementors included the completely non-standard capability of multiple recipients in the "TO" field, CC itself is terribly underused itself.
So now you know... and knowing is half the battle.
That's because nobody in Scotland dies for looking under a kilt or letting someone look under one. It only takes a pint and a kind word in some cases. So why see it on the net when you can see it in person?
Of course, if you're a straight guy, what's under a burkka is more interesting than what's under a kilt.
All the links in the summary point to the same site. All the links in all the stories linked from here go back to the same web of stories on the same site. There's not a link to an actual original reference anywhere except to the original mailing list announcement about Libre Office. There's not even one to The Document Foundation's site. It's all just ad-bearing pages forming a neat little maze.
If you're actually worried someone will build that sort of customized system to break your passwords, you take off your tin-foil hat and get on some medication. I said it was possible. I never said it'd be ultimately worthwhile to do. Maybe in 20 years there'll be a way to do it that's cost effective for the US NSA, but by then you'll probably be using a 256-bit or 512-bit salt as a matter of course anyway. You'll probably also be using some other security to keep people from getting the encrypted password, armed physical security teams, and some quite frequent password expirations if your data is of that kind of value.
Hence the "neither would the average nation-state intelligence agency" in reference to how ludicrously expensive the task would be compared to any possible value it could provide. You do summarize the point quite nicely, though. It's not impossible. It's just pointless.
If you do some math with products currently on the market and soon to be on the market, you could get four exabytes stored pretty easily in under 1000 standard 42 unit racks. All it takes is money. The computation nodes could be really wimpy because they'd just be accessing the right piece of data from a hierarchical structure.
You're probably right. I don't really remember exactly when they came out in relation to one another, but I was thinking the G1 hardly sold and the Nexus One followed the Droid closely. I'm sorry if I got the timing wrong, but the point I think stands once the proper product in the timeline is selected.
Let's look back at six months before the Nexus One. Linux phones weren't selling. Then someone got them a carriage and six white steeds, and midnight hasn't come quite yet.
Well, technically, you could have a rainbow table including different random salts. It'd be so enormous that most systems wouldn't actually be able to use it. Talk about space/time trade offs, though. If you had a big enough system with enough time to pre-compute the tables beforehand and enough storage to make them usable, then you'd really save loads of time in cracking passwords. The average high schooler isn't going to have such a system at his disposal, though. Neither would the average nation-state intelligence agency.
If you really want to be a cynical bastard, you could say it'd be great to get rid of the random killers like influenza so we can wipe out populations in a more controlled manner. War or severe economic sanctions might do the trick, for instance. Hail Malthus and all that.
I like your idea about better sustainability better.
It's not a complete theory. It's just a simple explanation of one phenomenon associated with the topic. As I understand it, there are also some sets of data that show that the space itself is also expanding between points along with the travel of the objects through space. There also could have been a different c very early on that was higher than what can happen now. There are likely a lot more things going on, but the fact that net relative velocity between two objects can be faster than the absolute velocities of either is as simple to show as two cars on a highway going toward or away from one another in opposite lanes. There may be and probably are more parts to the answer than that, but this simple idea alone is enough to account for apparent FTL when two galaxy clusters move in opposing directions.
I can give you two simple ideas that don't even involve FTL travel.
First, matter is travelling in different directions. If you can get to the speed of light in directions more than 90 degrees separated from a common starting point, they will travel faster than light relative to one another even though they are only travelling at or near the speed of light relative to the starting point. The speed of two things travelling at c at exactly opposite trajectories from the starting point is actually 2c relative to one another.
Second, there's a very good chance we're nowhere near the center of the universe. Our galaxy supercluster probably went far from the bang like most everything else. So there's probably stuff that went near the speed of light in many other directions, some of which are a net "away" direction compared to the path of our volume of space just like the above paragraph explains.
No, it will never be perfect. Yet improving on what there is now is the whole point. Is your solution better somehow than that suggested in the article?
Slashdot Mirror
I specifically said you have a right to drive ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE LAND. I specifically said you need a license to DRIVE ON A PUBLIC ROAD for the exact fact that the SAFETY OF OTHERS IS A QUESTION OF YOUR ABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY.
Where, from that, did you get that I said you had a right to drive on a public road?
How many people will die in long car trips because they'd rather drive 19 hours than get in this silly contraption that's going to do nothing to make them safer from being strangled by the shoulder strap on a laptop bag?
I mean, seriously, the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters. They weren't carrying guns or explosives. They were using what they could get through security at the time, and guns and most explosives were already banned on flights. A reasonably fit and determined group of men could garrote passengers with their shoe strings for crying out loud.
You do not make airplanes safer by making people fly cold and naked. You might make them safer by putting armed air marshals on the flights. You do make them safer by making the cockpit secure. You don't make a stadium more secure by having people killed while tailgating before the game rather than in the plastic seats. You might make it more secure by posting snipers and dogs all over the place. You will make it more secure by intercepting electronic communications of known threats and infiltrating the terrorist groups with live, wetware agents to prevent the attacks.
One agency that could help with this on a grand scale gets short shrift because they also deal with Latino relatives of legal immigrants. ICE could, if allowed and properly funded, take a good swipe at keeping foreign terrorists out. They are largely hamstrung because we don't have a sensible guest worker visa program. We'd have a lot fewer people who welcomed illegal immigrants if it was easier for good, honest people to come here and work legally with proper documentation.
As for domestic terrorists, we can't do a whole lot about that until they have raised probable cause unless we all want to live as perpetual criminal suspects. I'd rather be at risk of someone committing a crime against me in a free country than live in a prison without walls to prevent it.
Education 26th
Health 26th
Quality of life 9th
Economic dynamism 2nd
Political environment 14th
Yeah, that sounds a whole lot worse than Cuba. Screw quality of life and political environment.
The irony of this is, of course, that DHS is an executive department under the Democrat President and you're blaming Republicans for what they are doing just because the cabinet was reorganized under a Republican.
Where is "here"? You make the tourism brochure like that and don't give us the destination?
You do have a right to drive. You just need to be properly licensed to do it on designated public property. You can drive all you want on your own property without a license, should you own enough to operate a motor vehicle on it. For most people there's little difference. It's a matter of other people and their property being (reasonably) safe around you when you're on public property operating your vehicle that requires a license.
...inside a metal tube...
Obviously Murphy applies to governments.
Collecting on an invalid debt through a collection agency and dinging your credit is illegal under US federal law, too.
Actually, 822, 2822, and 5322 all three specifically allow for it. There were standards for the Internet Messaging Protocol and such before SMTP and RFCs 821 and 822. There were also other non-ARPAnet email systems before 1982.
You are completely correct that To: accepts a list by the current standards for Internet email. The merits of that decision are debatable, but the problem isn't really the number of people allowed in the To: field as people using the To: field for both primary and secondary recipients or naming dozens of primary recipients rather than using BCC or a mailing list package. That's the real shame.
SMTP doesn't know "BCC". SMTP knows "RCPT TO". The MUA knows "BCC" and "RCPT TO" both because it speaks SMTP and also knows the mail content format for TO, FROM, CC, and REPLY TO headers. BCC is an extra version of CC that adds more RCPT TO requests to the SMTP session but doesn't add a header like CC does.
Unfortunately, since so many implementors included the completely non-standard capability of multiple recipients in the "TO" field, CC itself is terribly underused itself.
So now you know... and knowing is half the battle.
That's because nobody in Scotland dies for looking under a kilt or letting someone look under one. It only takes a pint and a kind word in some cases. So why see it on the net when you can see it in person?
Of course, if you're a straight guy, what's under a burkka is more interesting than what's under a kilt.
All the links in the summary point to the same site. All the links in all the stories linked from here go back to the same web of stories on the same site. There's not a link to an actual original reference anywhere except to the original mailing list announcement about Libre Office. There's not even one to The Document Foundation's site. It's all just ad-bearing pages forming a neat little maze.
If you're actually worried someone will build that sort of customized system to break your passwords, you take off your tin-foil hat and get on some medication. I said it was possible. I never said it'd be ultimately worthwhile to do. Maybe in 20 years there'll be a way to do it that's cost effective for the US NSA, but by then you'll probably be using a 256-bit or 512-bit salt as a matter of course anyway. You'll probably also be using some other security to keep people from getting the encrypted password, armed physical security teams, and some quite frequent password expirations if your data is of that kind of value.
Hence the "neither would the average nation-state intelligence agency" in reference to how ludicrously expensive the task would be compared to any possible value it could provide. You do summarize the point quite nicely, though. It's not impossible. It's just pointless.
If you do some math with products currently on the market and soon to be on the market, you could get four exabytes stored pretty easily in under 1000 standard 42 unit racks. All it takes is money. The computation nodes could be really wimpy because they'd just be accessing the right piece of data from a hierarchical structure.
You're probably right. I don't really remember exactly when they came out in relation to one another, but I was thinking the G1 hardly sold and the Nexus One followed the Droid closely. I'm sorry if I got the timing wrong, but the point I think stands once the proper product in the timeline is selected.
Let's look back at six months before the Nexus One. Linux phones weren't selling. Then someone got them a carriage and six white steeds, and midnight hasn't come quite yet.
Well, technically, you could have a rainbow table including different random salts. It'd be so enormous that most systems wouldn't actually be able to use it. Talk about space/time trade offs, though. If you had a big enough system with enough time to pre-compute the tables beforehand and enough storage to make them usable, then you'd really save loads of time in cracking passwords. The average high schooler isn't going to have such a system at his disposal, though. Neither would the average nation-state intelligence agency.
If you really want to be a cynical bastard, you could say it'd be great to get rid of the random killers like influenza so we can wipe out populations in a more controlled manner. War or severe economic sanctions might do the trick, for instance. Hail Malthus and all that.
I like your idea about better sustainability better.
It's not a complete theory. It's just a simple explanation of one phenomenon associated with the topic. As I understand it, there are also some sets of data that show that the space itself is also expanding between points along with the travel of the objects through space. There also could have been a different c very early on that was higher than what can happen now. There are likely a lot more things going on, but the fact that net relative velocity between two objects can be faster than the absolute velocities of either is as simple to show as two cars on a highway going toward or away from one another in opposite lanes. There may be and probably are more parts to the answer than that, but this simple idea alone is enough to account for apparent FTL when two galaxy clusters move in opposing directions.
I can give you two simple ideas that don't even involve FTL travel.
First, matter is travelling in different directions. If you can get to the speed of light in directions more than 90 degrees separated from a common starting point, they will travel faster than light relative to one another even though they are only travelling at or near the speed of light relative to the starting point. The speed of two things travelling at c at exactly opposite trajectories from the starting point is actually 2c relative to one another.
Second, there's a very good chance we're nowhere near the center of the universe. Our galaxy supercluster probably went far from the bang like most everything else. So there's probably stuff that went near the speed of light in many other directions, some of which are a net "away" direction compared to the path of our volume of space just like the above paragraph explains.
No, it will never be perfect. Yet improving on what there is now is the whole point. Is your solution better somehow than that suggested in the article?
Shit. In China, people the party doesn't already like aren't even allowed to be party members.
One word: Chicago.
Those fuckers can get anyone elected to anything, even the dead ones. Sometimes especially the dead ones.