What scares me most is the apparently lack of cryptographical expertise. Now I'm not a crypto expert but I have perused Bruce Schneier's secure elections chapter in Applied Cryptography, and I work orthogonoly with security systems (e.g. Kerberos) - But even considering an embedded password, or operating system security, as any form of reliable security, is just absolutely bewildering. Have these people not heard of PKI? Signatures? Blinding? This is not "theoretical" stuff at all. It is a sad day when the security of democracy is relegated to that of the "next stupidest" competitor.
While Science implies validating hypotheses, it also implies INVALIDATING incorrect ones. Simply discarding outhand circumstantial evidence, is not science and is just as foolish as claiming outlandish things. There is a long, consistent history of trustworthy people (policemen, firemen, soldiers, air force and commercial pilots, citizens of many walks of life, military and commercial radar operators) testifying of some VERY STRANGE inexplicable phonomenon. The fact that when unexplained phenomenon occur the government and military swoop in is even MORE reason to try to find out what has or hasn't happened in these circumstances, and if they are connected. Even if it is satellites, or space garbage, wouldn't it be worthwhile verifying the rates that this crap actually falls to earth, or if it is really "weather phenomena", surely explaining it would have scientific value right?
150 years? fuck that. 20 years barring absolute immediate necessity, mandating a very high percentage of congressional vote, and/or supreme court upholding. People who are getting screwed deserve to find out within their lifetime (if not there will NEVER be effective change). "Oops the government introduced a genetic mutagen into your family line 150 years ago, sorry about that chum!" The government should not be able to institutionally deceive the public.
Ok, the scientific thing to do would be to 1) fix a bug in development, and compare the cost against 2) leaving the bug as is, then trying to fix it while you are in live production....
False choice. There is always the option of finding a sustainable method. But of course Americans like things 1) cheap 2) now (despite the fact that they will be vastly more expensive later), which tends to run counter to sustainable practices (same thing for energy policy, etc.).
To follow up, once the compatibility is there, regardless of whether it is slow, there will suddenly be inertia to improve it, and a target for some of the big players to throw money at to improve (it's always easier to improve a good thing that already exists, than to be the one to invest in it to begin with). It will also provide a migration path for current driver writers. Rewriting drivers entirely (especially for an operating system with such a low market at this point) is not a feasible migration path for most companies looking at their bottom line. When companies can write ONE application and ONE set of drivers, all of a sudden there will be a reason to improve on the Linux side. Companies that currently don't have Linux applications or drivers (i.e. the VAST MAJORITY), have zero incentive to burn money on writing native Linux apps/drivers.
"If Drivers are written for windows and then emulated to other OS's it will give Windows a permanent performance advantage."
If drivers are written for windows and then "emulated" (not really emulated, just run through an abstraction API), it will render windows IRRELEVANT. Slow drivers run infinitely faster than NO DRIVERS. Once the drivers become commoditized a HUGE reason is eliminated for keeping Windows around (the current main reasons being ubiquity of 1) applications 2) drivers; we have already achieved #1).
Drivers are only really a performance concern (as far as an abstraction layer is concerned) for things like graphics card drivers, which are already woefully absent in Linux (and of course they change frequently as the technology is updated). I'd wager most "desktop" users of Linux don't even have kernels recompiled for their specific CPU, so I think an abstraction layer isn't going to make much of a difference.
"What I find annoying is that the "best" way to make a dynamic site keeps changing."
Maybe because there is no "best way"...
There is significant impedence mismatch between an interactive GUI and a server-side-generated UI, these frameworks are just a way to cover it up. What is really needed is some sort of universal declarative UI language - and again, there are several contenders (XPCOM/XUL for example, Tim Berners Lee is pushing cURL, which is a mixed UI/content language), but there is no current standard.
Can you point to a reference on -c none that explains whether or not the authentication negotiation is encrypted? Every other post here says it is, despite -c none.
First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it. This is fast, easy, and takes little hand motion on my laptop keyboard. All this Ctrl key action slows me down. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I need to work quickly if I want to earn a living, and I don't see why Windows wants me to go through all those extra hand motions just to paste a URL into a story. Geh.
Besides the fact that you might not WANT everything you highlight going into a clipboard buffer, there is a legitimate reason for that. Here is an example: Copy and paste a selection in one window into another selection in another window:
1) Ctrl-C window #1 2) select text in window #2 3) Ctrl-V window #2
You would not be able to do this with highlight-automatically-copies mode. You would have to highlight in one window go to the other, highlight in that window, go back (and hope that whatever toolkit/windowmanager/whatever kept both selections simultaneously), and then middle click somewhere and hope that the "somewhere" knew to put the clipboard into the selection in window #2.
The first thing that happened after I fired up Windows XP is that it virtually ordered me to download a series of patches. I did so, but it wasn't like a SuSE update where you see every patch available and can say "yes" or "no" to each one if you like. The Windows update process told me nothing except that it was happening, and that I needed to reboot when it was over. A Windows-using friend said, "Yes, that's the way it works, and if you don't do the updates your computer keeps annoying you, so you have to do them even if they take hours like they sometimes do."
Bullshit. Unless XP is vastly different than 2000 in this regard (that's rhetorical - it's not), you are given three choices 1) download and install automatically 2) download and prompt 3) don't do anything. Surely a linux guru can figure out how to configure this. Hint: there is a big fucking icon in the control panel.
Next I decided to install an IRC program. I'm a longtime XChat user in Linux, but I noticed that the Windows version of this fine program was shown as 'experimental' on the XChat site, and that most Windows users I know use mIRC, so I decided to be mainstream and run mIRC.
Once again, the software download and install was as easy as I've come to expect from a modern Linux distribution. Indeed, it was slightly faster since I didn't need to type in my root password to make the installation happen, but I think this lack of security for software installation may be one of the causes of the hidden spyware problems I keep reading about Windows users having, so I'm not sure saving the work of typing "***********" into a little box when you want to install or update a program is worth the security risk it causes.
First really rude surprise: mIRC costs $20.
Holy fucking shit! Software costs something! Give me a break. It is written by a shareware author who probably gets no significant revenue, and nobody pays for that stuff anyway. I happened to pay for it after a long time of freeloading because it WAS a decent app, and my $20 "registration" also happened to be going to a charity (in which case I was feeding starving kids, not programmers).
It isn't free like XChat. Supposedly you get a free 30 day trial, but my copy started blinking "your evaluation time is up" each time I started it after the 3rd day. Apparently the mIRC developers have a slight math problem. Not only that, I found the program much harder to use and less intuitive than XChat. Even after a week, I still haven't figured out how to add a new network to it easily, a f
The great thing is, we DON'T NEED a centralized solution:
1) decentralized/localized power generation 2) alternative energy sources 3) more stable power grid 4) more jobs 5) $$$!
This problem can be solved by smaller, more efficient (either alternative energy, or reduction in transmission distance inefficiencies), localized power sources. Each of the nodes is not necessarily very stable, but because there are so DAMN MANY of them, it would be very hard to have a large blackout like the entire east coast. Sound familiar?;)
Big oil/energy of course will fight this with all it has, with commercials that tout how they are valiently "exploring" the oceans, or how they have "cleanburn" this or that. But alternative energy industries will CREATE JOBS. Imagine that, more companies building new types of energy plants, more support personnel, more consumer-related products, etc. Even if you are conservative you don't have to believe in froo-froo tree hugging nonsense to see that moving incentives from the current centralized unreliable system to new sources/decentralized systems will create new businesses (you like that remember), and jobs.
Just look at what is happening with the "organic" trend. Midwest and small time, traditionally conservative, farmers found out they can profit MUCH more by selling expensive "organic" stuff.
For an administration that is pro-defense you'd think they'd start looking at how to protect our critical infrastructure at a fundamental design level (the whole reason behind the 'net to begin with).
"Maybe it's because: *Registered addresses are in countries with no spam laws *Registered addresses are fake"
May very well be true. In which case I hope our next President launches a new War Against Spam. If you give harbor to Spammers you are considered the same as Spammers. Drop the bombs, not fucking mercy.
No, it's all tcip/ip/udp. Blocking an application level protocol does not really change the status of the connection you have (you can just do less with it).
Although it is a legitimate question whether stateful/content-based filters erode the usefulness of the net...
Hey, I'm all "ra ra comrades" like the rest of you (*glances around*) but capitalism is supposedly based on strong property rights.
Spam is (usually, and at least in the locations of the majority of victims, i.e. people in countries with money to buy stuff) a VIOLATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. It is not a legitimate business practice. Isn't it coincidental how a lot of spam originates from non-capitalist countries?
Who are the ISPs/registrars for these fuckers and why aren't burly men in blue suits and submachine guns breaking down the doors of their registered addresses? Isn't DNS tiered? Isn't there an upstream DNS terminating at a registrar? Why can't this be tracked?
Slashdot Mirror
Large litigious corporations do not get to hold democracy hostage. If they want to sue, they can sue fucking everybody and we should all stand up.
What scares me most is the apparently lack of cryptographical expertise. Now I'm not a crypto expert but I have perused Bruce Schneier's secure elections chapter in Applied Cryptography, and I work orthogonoly with security systems (e.g. Kerberos) - But even considering an embedded password, or operating system security, as any form of reliable security, is just absolutely bewildering. Have these people not heard of PKI? Signatures? Blinding? This is not "theoretical" stuff at all. It is a sad day when the security of democracy is relegated to that of the "next stupidest" competitor.
While Science implies validating hypotheses, it also implies INVALIDATING incorrect ones. Simply discarding outhand circumstantial evidence, is not science and is just as foolish as claiming outlandish things. There is a long, consistent history of trustworthy people (policemen, firemen, soldiers, air force and commercial pilots, citizens of many walks of life, military and commercial radar operators) testifying of some VERY STRANGE inexplicable phonomenon. The fact that when unexplained phenomenon occur the government and military swoop in is even MORE reason to try to find out what has or hasn't happened in these circumstances, and if they are connected. Even if it is satellites, or space garbage, wouldn't it be worthwhile verifying the rates that this crap actually falls to earth, or if it is really "weather phenomena", surely explaining it would have scientific value right?
"The Prof", this is your professor. "Teaching philosophy" is an oxymoron. I wouldn't try too hard.
150 years? fuck that. 20 years barring absolute immediate necessity, mandating a very high percentage of congressional vote, and/or supreme court upholding. People who are getting screwed deserve to find out within their lifetime (if not there will NEVER be effective change). "Oops the government introduced a genetic mutagen into your family line 150 years ago, sorry about that chum!" The government should not be able to institutionally deceive the public.
But would recycling a bunch of polycarbonate CDs be as easy as filling a bowl with nacho cheese and inviting over friends?
Ok, the scientific thing to do would be to 1) fix a bug in development, and compare the cost against 2) leaving the bug as is, then trying to fix it while you are in live production....
;)
Any takers?
False choice. There is always the option of finding a sustainable method. But of course Americans like things 1) cheap 2) now (despite the fact that they will be vastly more expensive later), which tends to run counter to sustainable practices (same thing for energy policy, etc.).
To follow up, once the compatibility is there, regardless of whether it is slow, there will suddenly be inertia to improve it, and a target for some of the big players to throw money at to improve (it's always easier to improve a good thing that already exists, than to be the one to invest in it to begin with). It will also provide a migration path for current driver writers. Rewriting drivers entirely (especially for an operating system with such a low market at this point) is not a feasible migration path for most companies looking at their bottom line. When companies can write ONE application and ONE set of drivers, all of a sudden there will be a reason to improve on the Linux side. Companies that currently don't have Linux applications or drivers (i.e. the VAST MAJORITY), have zero incentive to burn money on writing native Linux apps/drivers.
"If Drivers are written for windows and then emulated to other OS's it will give Windows a permanent performance advantage."
If drivers are written for windows and then "emulated" (not really emulated, just run through an abstraction API), it will render windows IRRELEVANT. Slow drivers run infinitely faster than NO DRIVERS. Once the drivers become commoditized a HUGE reason is eliminated for keeping Windows around (the current main reasons being ubiquity of 1) applications 2) drivers; we have already achieved #1).
Drivers are only really a performance concern (as far as an abstraction layer is concerned) for things like graphics card drivers, which are already woefully absent in Linux (and of course they change frequently as the technology is updated). I'd wager most "desktop" users of Linux don't even have kernels recompiled for their specific CPU, so I think an abstraction layer isn't going to make much of a difference.
Are you trying to say Linux is a witch?
"What I find annoying is that the "best" way to make a dynamic site keeps changing."
Maybe because there is no "best way"...
There is significant impedence mismatch between an interactive GUI and a server-side-generated UI, these frameworks are just a way to cover it up. What is really needed is some sort of universal declarative UI language - and again, there are several contenders (XPCOM/XUL for example, Tim Berners Lee is pushing cURL, which is a mixed UI/content language), but there is no current standard.
Can you point to a reference on -c none that explains whether or not the authentication negotiation is encrypted? Every other post here says it is, despite -c none.
"Miniture spy planes, developed by BYU and the Air Force, weighing only 3 oz, and having a 24 foot wingspan."
;)
Damn, 24 feet, eh? Not that miniature...
Hit the post number to read more, there is more but no read more link.
test, the parent is not showing up in results
Besides the fact that you might not WANT everything you highlight going into a clipboard buffer, there is a legitimate reason for that. Here is an example: Copy and paste a selection in one window into another selection in another window:
1) Ctrl-C window #1
2) select text in window #2
3) Ctrl-V window #2
You would not be able to do this with highlight-automatically-copies mode. You would have to highlight in one window go to the other, highlight in that window, go back (and hope that whatever toolkit/windowmanager/whatever kept both selections simultaneously), and then middle click somewhere and hope that the "somewhere" knew to put the clipboard into the selection in window #2.
Bullshit. Unless XP is vastly different than 2000 in this regard (that's rhetorical - it's not), you are given three choices 1) download and install automatically 2) download and prompt 3) don't do anything. Surely a linux guru can figure out how to configure this. Hint: there is a big fucking icon in the control panel.
Holy fucking shit! Software costs something! Give me a break. It is written by a shareware author who probably gets no significant revenue, and nobody pays for that stuff anyway. I happened to pay for it after a long time of freeloading because it WAS a decent app, and my $20 "registration" also happened to be going to a charity (in which case I was feeding starving kids, not programmers).
The great thing is, we DON'T NEED a centralized solution:
;)
1) decentralized/localized power generation
2) alternative energy sources
3) more stable power grid
4) more jobs
5) $$$!
This problem can be solved by smaller, more efficient (either alternative energy, or reduction in transmission distance inefficiencies), localized power sources. Each of the nodes is not necessarily very stable, but because there are so DAMN MANY of them, it would be very hard to have a large blackout like the entire east coast. Sound familiar?
Big oil/energy of course will fight this with all it has, with commercials that tout how they are valiently "exploring" the oceans, or how they have "cleanburn" this or that. But alternative energy industries will CREATE JOBS. Imagine that, more companies building new types of energy plants, more support personnel, more consumer-related products, etc. Even if you are conservative you don't have to believe in froo-froo tree hugging nonsense to see that moving incentives from the current centralized unreliable system to new sources/decentralized systems will create new businesses (you like that remember), and jobs.
Just look at what is happening with the "organic" trend. Midwest and small time, traditionally conservative, farmers found out they can profit MUCH more by selling expensive "organic" stuff.
For an administration that is pro-defense you'd think they'd start looking at how to protect our critical infrastructure at a fundamental design level (the whole reason behind the 'net to begin with).
"How does one foster more developer involvement?"
;)
Try couching your advertisement as a question on a major tech news site, that should do the trick.
"Maybe it's because:
*Registered addresses are in countries with no spam laws
*Registered addresses are fake"
May very well be true. In which case I hope our next President launches a new War Against Spam. If you give harbor to Spammers you are considered the same as Spammers. Drop the bombs, not fucking mercy.
"they're drop shipping from East Bumfsck, Kansas?"
Sounds like it's time for East Bumfsck to get, err, bumfscked.
No, it's all tcip/ip/udp. Blocking an application level protocol does not really change the status of the connection you have (you can just do less with it).
Although it is a legitimate question whether stateful/content-based filters erode the usefulness of the net...
"capitalistically motivated sharks"
Hey, I'm all "ra ra comrades" like the rest of you (*glances around*) but capitalism is supposedly based on strong property rights.
Spam is (usually, and at least in the locations of the majority of victims, i.e. people in countries with money to buy stuff) a VIOLATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. It is not a legitimate business practice. Isn't it coincidental how a lot of spam originates from non-capitalist countries?
Who are the ISPs/registrars for these fuckers and why aren't burly men in blue suits and submachine guns breaking down the doors of their registered addresses? Isn't DNS tiered? Isn't there an upstream DNS terminating at a registrar? Why can't this be tracked?
Or do it the other way, have VERBAL tests/quizzes. Let's see somebody copy THAT.