The point (which I think was obvious to everyone) is that Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar corporation, should know what they're doing and not need "feedback" to tell them that they should provide license terms with sample code.
Ya don't get it do ya? They come to your house and they take all your computers. If they can't find the one they want, they come back. If you kick up a stink they bring in private security, or they enlist the help of local law enforcement. As for intent, if you've just done a normal deleting of files, then the forensic guys will still be able to find remnants of them. If you've gone to some trouble to do "secure deletion" then the forensic guys will be able to see that you have done that too. Unless, of course, you're telling me that you're an expert in computer forensics yourself and know how to beat them at their own game.
They forced all the hotmail users and all the xbox users and all the other users of Microsoft services to sign up, so they figure they've got a nice big market share now.
You are aware that we're talking about a civil case, and you don't get to say anything in court and if the judge thinks you've tried to tamper with evidence he can just lock you up for contempt and you don't even get a trial, right?
Go to Hotmail. You will see that Hotmail now requires you to login with Windows Live ID. Now, take a look at this page. It's a login page. They want you to enter your ID and your password. This is what gives you access to all the different services that are currently integrated with Windows Live ID, and will be integrated in the future. It's basically your "master password". Thing I'm trying to stress here: you shouldn't just give this out to anyone who asks. Ok, you get the idea.
So, first check you should do whenever you're logging into a page is what? That's right, check the url. "http://login.live.com/login.srf?wa=wsignin1.0&rps nv=10&c...." etc. Great, login.live.com, that's what I expect. Cool. Ok, so what's the second thing I should check? Anyone? Come on, it's web password security 101 here people. What do I need to check before I enter a login/password on a web site? That's right.. I need to check I'm on an SSL secured page. The url should start with what? https right? And I should look for the little lock in my browser window.. and if I'm feeling especially paranoid I should check the security certificate to see whether or not it is valid, not expired, and for the site that I am expecting.
This page has none of those things. Well done Microsoft.
Oh, but it gets better. There's this link that says "Use enhanced security". I would have thought that "enhanced" security was a sensible default, silly me. It's not underlined, so you don't know it is a link until you hover your mouse over it, but it will take you to a https:/// page. Of course, the certificate it offers you is not for login.live.com, it's for graphics.hotmail.com. If you accept this certificate then you are basically saying that you're ok with trusting this data that didn't come from graphics.hotmail.com as if it did come from graphics.hotmail.com. Just for the hell of it, let's fire up this "enhanced security" page in IE and see what happens. Oh.. I see. We get no warnings. In fact, if we double click on the padlock we see that the certificate now IS for live.login.com. Hmm, what's going on here. Ahh, I see, half the content on this page didn't come from live.login.com, it came from graphics.hotmail.com.. so this isn't a secure site *at all*, it's a mixed domain site and IE's pitiful support for multiple certificates on a single page is happy to just ignore this (and doesn't even warn you).
Recent cases have suggested that yes, they do. Thing is, they can get the court to demand you turn over your hard drive and get forensic experts to look for remnants of the files. If they're successful, you'll be the one paying the forensic expert's bill.
It varies from state to state. In most, though, you're looking at a fine, not jail time, and common areas are considered everyone's responsibility, not no-one's responsibility. Obviously if they find drugs in your roommate's room, not in yours, then you're clear.
This reminds me of people who leave their bong in the lounge room or other "communal area" in share accommodation. If the cops burst in they can't prove who was smoking the pot, so they can't arrest anyone, right?
Well, no. The cops just charge everyone with possession and when they try to pull that communal area crap in court they get laughed at by the judge.
If you're going to go around the world in a "hop" then you are going at least orbital velocity. Getting to orbit is just as hard. Thus the argument about current launch vehicles. My point was that both the current price of such a hop and the possible future price (very optimistic) are out of range of the original estimate.
Cause at some point a "suborbital hop" becomes so long that you *are* in orbit. New York to Sydney is 10,000 miles (16,000 km). Orbital velocity for 185km altitude is 7.79 km/sec, or 28044 km/hr. So if you want to jump from New York to Sydney you're going to need to spend 34 minutes in orbit at that altitude, so you only have 26 minutes to ascend and descend if you want to do the whole trip in less than an hour.
If you don't go that high then you'll never be able to do that kind of speed (it'd be Mach 24 at sea level).
Umm.. you don't consider the thousands of satellite manufacturers to be "commercial space companies"? Or maybe satellites are just not "hardware"? BTW, what's "working" mean to you?
I question your numbers. Using current launch capabilities your figure is way too low. Personally, I'm not too interested in NY to LA. I'm more interested in NY to London or Sydney. For that you're actually going to have to hit orbit. SpaceX's Falcon 1 is the world's lowest cost per flight to orbit of a production rocket. A standard Falcon 1 mission is $7 million.
Of course, if you're talking about the future, and want to be super optimistic about it, then let's think about reusable launch vehicles. Basically the entire cost of the vehicle can be ignored, as it will be amortized over its use. So that leaves fuel, taxes, insurance, etc. A flight on a plane, today, is basically just the price of the fuel plus a thin margin. So fuel is a pretty good indicator of how cheap rocket travel could ever be.
Armadillo Aerospace are talking up a modular reusable rocket concept. They've flown some modules, but they're still a few years off putting a person on it. Each module has 180 pounds ethanol and 250 pounds LOX and they're saying 64 modules to get to orbit. Ignoring, for now, the fact that they have no idea how to deorbit - they intend to make some money from one way trips, like, satellite launches, etc. That's about $28 for the ethanol, $9 for the LOX, per module, or $2368 for an orbital flight. Even if you double that to do an inefficient re-entry and retro-rocket landing, that's still pretty cheap to go from any two points on the planet. Especially when you consider that every time they throw someone from one continent to another they can also drop something off in space, they can divide the cost between many stakeholders.
And this is all with garage level technology. There's no scaled composites here. There's no turbo pumps and aerodynamic wings. And there's no tethers or laser propulsion systems or any of the other fancy innovations that we might see in the distance future.
It's been little reported, and they are yet to update their schedule on the web site, but Elon Musk has said SpaceX won't be launching another Falcon I until next year. The two launches planned for the second half of this year have been scrubbed so they can make performance improvements to the vehicle. Most notably, changing the engine from Merlin 1a to Merlin 1c, and upgrading the material on the second stage tank to a higher strength aluminum, along with some improvements to the second stage engine. Robustness issues will also be addressed.
Ok, for a start, the article said 180 cubic meters. The habitat is a cylinder, and from the pictures appears to be only slightly longer than it is wide. So, we know the radius of the cylinder must be about half the length. pi * 3 * 3 * 6.37 is about 180. So the radius is probably 3 meters. So imagine a cylinder lying on its side, two stories high, and about as long. And imagine you're in zero gravity, so you have all that space to work in once you build gantries in it.
Not being a German speaker I'm completely incapable of being informed on this issue. Not being in Germany, I could also care less.
So, is there anyone reading this who 1) understands German and 2) has read the law?
Does it happen to say anything about "intent"? Cause most every law I've read in English that was reported similarly to this law has, and the reporting is just a blatant attempt to stir up hysteria.
Slashdot Mirror
The point (which I think was obvious to everyone) is that Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar corporation, should know what they're doing and not need "feedback" to tell them that they should provide license terms with sample code.
"Suborbital" is where you go *less* than orbital velocity. It isn't anything to do with an orbit being "stable" or not.
Now, if you're suggesting that there is a way to go 16,000 km in half an hour without going above 28044 km/hr then I'd really like to hear how.
Ya don't get it do ya? They come to your house and they take all your computers. If they can't find the one they want, they come back. If you kick up a stink they bring in private security, or they enlist the help of local law enforcement. As for intent, if you've just done a normal deleting of files, then the forensic guys will still be able to find remnants of them. If you've gone to some trouble to do "secure deletion" then the forensic guys will be able to see that you have done that too. Unless, of course, you're telling me that you're an expert in computer forensics yourself and know how to beat them at their own game.
They forced all the hotmail users and all the xbox users and all the other users of Microsoft services to sign up, so they figure they've got a nice big market share now.
The terms of use don't say anything about the copyright on the sample code. In fact, they don't say anything about the sample code at all.
You are aware that we're talking about a civil case, and you don't get to say anything in court and if the judge thinks you've tried to tamper with evidence he can just lock you up for contempt and you don't even get a trial, right?
Go to Hotmail. You will see that Hotmail now requires you to login with Windows Live ID. Now, take a look at this page. It's a login page. They want you to enter your ID and your password. This is what gives you access to all the different services that are currently integrated with Windows Live ID, and will be integrated in the future. It's basically your "master password". Thing I'm trying to stress here: you shouldn't just give this out to anyone who asks. Ok, you get the idea.
s nv=10&c...." etc. Great, login.live.com, that's what I expect. Cool. Ok, so what's the second thing I should check? Anyone? Come on, it's web password security 101 here people. What do I need to check before I enter a login/password on a web site? That's right.. I need to check I'm on an SSL secured page. The url should start with what? https right? And I should look for the little lock in my browser window.. and if I'm feeling especially paranoid I should check the security certificate to see whether or not it is valid, not expired, and for the site that I am expecting.
So, first check you should do whenever you're logging into a page is what? That's right, check the url. "http://login.live.com/login.srf?wa=wsignin1.0&rp
This page has none of those things. Well done Microsoft.
Oh, but it gets better. There's this link that says "Use enhanced security". I would have thought that "enhanced" security was a sensible default, silly me. It's not underlined, so you don't know it is a link until you hover your mouse over it, but it will take you to a https:/// page. Of course, the certificate it offers you is not for login.live.com, it's for graphics.hotmail.com. If you accept this certificate then you are basically saying that you're ok with trusting this data that didn't come from graphics.hotmail.com as if it did come from graphics.hotmail.com. Just for the hell of it, let's fire up this "enhanced security" page in IE and see what happens. Oh.. I see. We get no warnings. In fact, if we double click on the padlock we see that the certificate now IS for live.login.com. Hmm, what's going on here. Ahh, I see, half the content on this page didn't come from live.login.com, it came from graphics.hotmail.com.. so this isn't a secure site *at all*, it's a mixed domain site and IE's pitiful support for multiple certificates on a single page is happy to just ignore this (and doesn't even warn you).
XSS anyone?
Yup, grab the php package, you will see:
Copyright (c) 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
and yeah, no license. So I guess implicitly you're not allowed to redistribute it at all.
Recent cases have suggested that yes, they do. Thing is, they can get the court to demand you turn over your hard drive and get forensic experts to look for remnants of the files. If they're successful, you'll be the one paying the forensic expert's bill.
It's a civil case, "doubt" doesn't help anyone 'cept the lawyers.
It varies from state to state. In most, though, you're looking at a fine, not jail time, and common areas are considered everyone's responsibility, not no-one's responsibility. Obviously if they find drugs in your roommate's room, not in yours, then you're clear.
Yes, the right to copy and communicate whatever we please, even if it violates someone's copyright.
This reminds me of people who leave their bong in the lounge room or other "communal area" in share accommodation. If the cops burst in they can't prove who was smoking the pot, so they can't arrest anyone, right?
Well, no. The cops just charge everyone with possession and when they try to pull that communal area crap in court they get laughed at by the judge.
Take responsibility. Stand up and declare your rights.
Don't weasel out by blaming the other guy.
Hopefully I don't have to explain to you why the Shuttle is an abysmal failure when it comes to reuse.
If you're going to go around the world in a "hop" then you are going at least orbital velocity. Getting to orbit is just as hard. Thus the argument about current launch vehicles. My point was that both the current price of such a hop and the possible future price (very optimistic) are out of range of the original estimate.
Cause at some point a "suborbital hop" becomes so long that you *are* in orbit. New York to Sydney is 10,000 miles (16,000 km). Orbital velocity for 185km altitude is 7.79 km/sec, or 28044 km/hr. So if you want to jump from New York to Sydney you're going to need to spend 34 minutes in orbit at that altitude, so you only have 26 minutes to ascend and descend if you want to do the whole trip in less than an hour.
If you don't go that high then you'll never be able to do that kind of speed (it'd be Mach 24 at sea level).
You'll burn up.
Umm.. you don't consider the thousands of satellite manufacturers to be "commercial space companies"? Or maybe satellites are just not "hardware"? BTW, what's "working" mean to you?
In short, what are you rambling about?
I question your numbers. Using current launch capabilities your figure is way too low. Personally, I'm not too interested in NY to LA. I'm more interested in NY to London or Sydney. For that you're actually going to have to hit orbit. SpaceX's Falcon 1 is the world's lowest cost per flight to orbit of a production rocket. A standard Falcon 1 mission is $7 million.
Of course, if you're talking about the future, and want to be super optimistic about it, then let's think about reusable launch vehicles. Basically the entire cost of the vehicle can be ignored, as it will be amortized over its use. So that leaves fuel, taxes, insurance, etc. A flight on a plane, today, is basically just the price of the fuel plus a thin margin. So fuel is a pretty good indicator of how cheap rocket travel could ever be.
Armadillo Aerospace are talking up a modular reusable rocket concept. They've flown some modules, but they're still a few years off putting a person on it. Each module has 180 pounds ethanol and 250 pounds LOX and they're saying 64 modules to get to orbit. Ignoring, for now, the fact that they have no idea how to deorbit - they intend to make some money from one way trips, like, satellite launches, etc. That's about $28 for the ethanol, $9 for the LOX, per module, or $2368 for an orbital flight. Even if you double that to do an inefficient re-entry and retro-rocket landing, that's still pretty cheap to go from any two points on the planet. Especially when you consider that every time they throw someone from one continent to another they can also drop something off in space, they can divide the cost between many stakeholders.
And this is all with garage level technology. There's no scaled composites here. There's no turbo pumps and aerodynamic wings. And there's no tethers or laser propulsion systems or any of the other fancy innovations that we might see in the distance future.
It's been little reported, and they are yet to update their schedule on the web site, but Elon Musk has said SpaceX won't be launching another Falcon I until next year. The two launches planned for the second half of this year have been scrubbed so they can make performance improvements to the vehicle. Most notably, changing the engine from Merlin 1a to Merlin 1c, and upgrading the material on the second stage tank to a higher strength aluminum, along with some improvements to the second stage engine. Robustness issues will also be addressed.
the word is 'habitat'. They're not making launch vehicles.
Ok, for a start, the article said 180 cubic meters. The habitat is a cylinder, and from the pictures appears to be only slightly longer than it is wide. So, we know the radius of the cylinder must be about half the length. pi * 3 * 3 * 6.37 is about 180. So the radius is probably 3 meters. So imagine a cylinder lying on its side, two stories high, and about as long. And imagine you're in zero gravity, so you have all that space to work in once you build gantries in it.
I care a little.. I could care less.
Not being a German speaker I'm completely incapable of being informed on this issue. Not being in Germany, I could also care less.
So, is there anyone reading this who 1) understands German and 2) has read the law?
Does it happen to say anything about "intent"? Cause most every law I've read in English that was reported similarly to this law has, and the reporting is just a blatant attempt to stir up hysteria.
When it's embedded in your brain, then you can brag.