Oh come on now... The title is inflammatory and tone is combative. Unsurprisingly the discussion at guy's blog degenerates pretty quickly.
I don't really disagree with most of his central points: Secure by default isn't really useful to most people; OpenBSD needs more security features than older UNIX ones; and the OpenBSD team does themselves a huge disservice with their "not invented here" syndrome... But really the whole thing could be been written with a more professional tone and fostered a lot more constructive discussion.
My experience with Telekom Austria and UPC/iNode has not been substantially different.. and actually not all that different from AT&T/Mindspring in America. So my feeling is that this is entrenched telecoms firms and not formerly state run firms.
I'd love to get 24e (Fiber) but my property management company won't have anything to do with it.
This raises the question about email providers. Who provides good, private, secure email service? If Hushmail has handed over keys & data on request, I'd rather not pay them €50-100 per year. In truth I'm not an international criminal or James Bond or anything... so I can't really justify too much cost. But surely there is a service which does not retain data for too long and would at least ask for a court order before handing anything over... and does not assume you have the financial backing of a TLA.
Given America's inability to adopt serious ecological policies, the refusal to recycle tech waste and instead to transport it to developing nations... I'm not seeing any developing nation willing to take it ever running out of rare earth minerals to sell to the Chinese.
Encryption can only be useful for emails when people use it for all or most of communications, so that one does not instantaneously flag communications of interest. Looking at my email habits, there are: 4 people who work for firms where encryption is specifically forbidden in company policy. 12 people who absolutely could not be taught how to use encryption... Including my mother who writes email as if she sending a telegraph and is paying per character. 2 people who could use encryption but who don't use it either, for the same reason I don't, the pool of potential recipients is too small.
While I don't particularly agree with the OP's claim that "causes him to pirate games", your whopper metaphor is equally lousy because whoppers are not digital.
"Intelligent design" is gambit to bring creationism to the public school system. This has been established in a court of law, when the "Intelligent design" document was shown to have had a document wide search & replace "Creationism" for "Intelligent design"... rather late in the writing process.
This is one of the many issues which peer review is designed to overcome. As far as I can tell it works extremely well. There's certainly no evidence that it works wonderfully in my field but breaks down in other fields.
As a subscriber to Nature I find it interesting that when we're talking about amino acids Nature is a highly respected international weekly journal of science but.... when we're talking climate science it's the nexus of an evil, duplicitous, Socialist, Marxist, environmentalist cabal bent on destroying the fabric of American society.
The key phrases you are looking for are "rainbow tables"; "time / memory trade-off"; "distributed computing"; "embarrassingly parallel"; "GPGPU Computing" and probably "More's Law".
So now computers are faster than when they cooked that "100,000 years" phrase. They are employing many different computers with multiple cores. GPUs are much faster at this calculation that X86 processors. Rainbow tables are ingenious methods to store precomputed results, so the actual cracking is simple comparisons between encrypted text with known values and the data you are attacking.
As you are clearly posting in a position of ignorance let me clear a few things up for you.
1: "Scientific Journal" describes "Nature", it is not the journal's name. It is a peer reviewed international weekly journal of science. 2: They & hundreds of other scientists reviewed the leaked data & correspondence and the published data. They concluded that there is nothing in this stolen data which effects our current understanding of climate science in any way. 3: They also concluded that many people are taking some phrases out of context and insisting that they mean something completely different than the context otherwise indicates. This is what you are doing. 4: Anthropogenic climate change is on going and there is ample evidence of it, even if we were to unfairly discount the work of CRU or the scientists named in this manufactured controversy. 5: That you assert if something was real there would have to be no data analysis or manipulation suggests to me that you have never done any kind of serious scientific investigation... or used a measurement or diagnostic device of any complexity.
I find it fascinating that denailists like yourself express wild fantasies with religious overtones when complaining about science. I also find it interesting how you are so willing to assert conspiracies of gigantic proportions to explain consensus in the scientific community. It's pretty pathetic to see people so divorced from reality.
except the denialists & obstructionists pay better, so if anyone was in the climate science debate for the purely money they'd be writing papers denying or refuting the existing science... and there has been no real scientist publishing real science refuting the current understanding of our climate.
Nature Magazine recently published an editorial "Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy". In fact no credible scientist has made a statement which disagrees with that editorial in any meaningful way. I don't need to defend anything concerning climate change science because there is nothing which challenges the science. So keep grasping at lies & and conspiracy theories. Because those and my typo are all an ignorant fool such as yourself has.
Your 'point' is is not factually correct. Nothing in the CRU email and data indicates scientists who subscribe to an anthropogenic cause of climate change have not been systematically lying or engaging in unethical practices to support their work. There already are *mountains* of evidence from a huge array of sciences supporting both climate change and an anthropogenic cause. And nothing on Wikileaks invalidates any of the work done at CRU or any other climate research institute.
The reality of all that hoopla is the people doing the agitating had long since decided that not only can the climate not change but even if it did man couldn't possibly have an impact.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on now... The title is inflammatory and tone is combative. Unsurprisingly the discussion at guy's blog degenerates pretty quickly.
I don't really disagree with most of his central points: Secure by default isn't really useful to most people; OpenBSD needs more security features than older UNIX ones; and the OpenBSD team does themselves a huge disservice with their "not invented here" syndrome... But really the whole thing could be been written with a more professional tone and fostered a lot more constructive discussion.
My experience with Telekom Austria and UPC/iNode has not been substantially different.. and actually not all that different from AT&T/Mindspring in America. So my feeling is that this is entrenched telecoms firms and not formerly state run firms.
I'd love to get 24e (Fiber) but my property management company won't have anything to do with it.
This raises the question about email providers. Who provides good, private, secure email service? If Hushmail has handed over keys & data on request, I'd rather not pay them €50-100 per year. In truth I'm not an international criminal or James Bond or anything... so I can't really justify too much cost. But surely there is a service which does not retain data for too long and would at least ask for a court order before handing anything over... and does not assume you have the financial backing of a TLA.
actually I'm sort of surprised at all the complicated suggestions everyone has come up with. Home routers are cheap and do everything the guy wanted.
I'd like to read a serious comparison between this and jails in FreeBSD and sandboxes in Mac OS.
I think a lot of these ideas have been around for a very long time but they are such a pain in the ass, very few people actually use them.
Joseph Kittinger would agree.
Google's servers have been much discussed... they are standard (but some things are not populated) and they have an on board battery to act as a UPS.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html
The project uses a high speed camera... so if a camera from a handy is going to be used, they are going to have to get a lot better.
Given America's inability to adopt serious ecological policies, the refusal to recycle tech waste and instead to transport it to developing nations... I'm not seeing any developing nation willing to take it ever running out of rare earth minerals to sell to the Chinese.
Encryption can only be useful for emails when people use it for all or most of communications, so that one does not instantaneously flag communications of interest. Looking at my email habits, there are: 4 people who work for firms where encryption is specifically forbidden in company policy. 12 people who absolutely could not be taught how to use encryption... Including my mother who writes email as if she sending a telegraph and is paying per character. 2 people who could use encryption but who don't use it either, for the same reason I don't, the pool of potential recipients is too small.
While I don't particularly agree with the OP's claim that "causes him to pirate games", your whopper metaphor is equally lousy because whoppers are not digital.
my god. the kids today are retarded.
"Intelligent design" is gambit to bring creationism to the public school system. This has been established in a court of law, when the "Intelligent design" document was shown to have had a document wide search & replace "Creationism" for "Intelligent design"... rather late in the writing process.
This is one of the many issues which peer review is designed to overcome. As far as I can tell it works extremely well. There's certainly no evidence that it works wonderfully in my field but breaks down in other fields.
As a subscriber to Nature I find it interesting that when we're talking about amino acids Nature is a highly respected international weekly journal of science but.... when we're talking climate science it's the nexus of an evil, duplicitous, Socialist, Marxist, environmentalist cabal bent on destroying the fabric of American society.
The key phrases you are looking for are "rainbow tables"; "time / memory trade-off"; "distributed computing"; "embarrassingly parallel"; "GPGPU Computing" and probably "More's Law".
So now computers are faster than when they cooked that "100,000 years" phrase. They are employing many different computers with multiple cores. GPUs are much faster at this calculation that X86 processors. Rainbow tables are ingenious methods to store precomputed results, so the actual cracking is simple comparisons between encrypted text with known values and the data you are attacking.
you are absolutely right... and it amazes how desperately some folks want to be bamboozled
As you are clearly posting in a position of ignorance let me clear a few things up for you.
1: "Scientific Journal" describes "Nature", it is not the journal's name. It is a peer reviewed international weekly journal of science.
2: They & hundreds of other scientists reviewed the leaked data & correspondence and the published data. They concluded that there is nothing in this stolen data which effects our current understanding of climate science in any way.
3: They also concluded that many people are taking some phrases out of context and insisting that they mean something completely different than the context otherwise indicates. This is what you are doing.
4: Anthropogenic climate change is on going and there is ample evidence of it, even if we were to unfairly discount the work of CRU or the scientists named in this manufactured controversy.
5: That you assert if something was real there would have to be no data analysis or manipulation suggests to me that you have never done any kind of serious scientific investigation... or used a measurement or diagnostic device of any complexity.
I find it fascinating that denailists like yourself express wild fantasies with religious overtones when complaining about science. I also find it interesting how you are so willing to assert conspiracies of gigantic proportions to explain consensus in the scientific community. It's pretty pathetic to see people so divorced from reality.
except the denialists & obstructionists pay better, so if anyone was in the climate science debate for the purely money they'd be writing papers denying or refuting the existing science... and there has been no real scientist publishing real science refuting the current understanding of our climate.
Nature Magazine recently published an editorial "Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy". In fact no credible scientist has made a statement which disagrees with that editorial in any meaningful way. I don't need to defend anything concerning climate change science because there is nothing which challenges the science. So keep grasping at lies & and conspiracy theories. Because those and my typo are all an ignorant fool such as yourself has.
lots of folks are using wave... just use "with:public" and you'll find all kinds of stuff
If speed matters it's cheaper, easier, and faster to buy more processing power.
Your 'point' is is not factually correct. Nothing in the CRU email and data indicates scientists who subscribe to an anthropogenic cause of climate change have not been systematically lying or engaging in unethical practices to support their work. There already are *mountains* of evidence from a huge array of sciences supporting both climate change and an anthropogenic cause. And nothing on Wikileaks invalidates any of the work done at CRU or any other climate research institute.
The reality of all that hoopla is the people doing the agitating had long since decided that not only can the climate not change but even if it did man couldn't possibly have an impact.
Gears / HTML5
Please try to keep up, the mindless poorly reasoned whining about Chrome OS was yesterday.
Probably it's a better idea to wait until there is some sort of Beta release available, instead of this very alpha release.