While the speed gap is certainly now closer between USB 2.0 and 1394a (regular FireWire, or iLink for those Sony people), it would be nice if the next generation iPods use the 1394b connection instead for those speed demons who want to sync and go quickly.
Though an interesting feature that would be nice for the iPod is a file browser built-in, where you can connect two iPods together and transfer files when you use the iPod like an HD. That would be indeed useful.
Another thing that would be nice is a flip in adaptor for the iPod so you can quickly plug in the iPod like a memory stick, instead of fishing for cables to plug it in. Those little things would be nice.
Now if your cell battery starts to get low while chatting to your friend while driving, you can just crank up your A/C, roll down your window, and hold one arm out the window while you eat and change the radio station with the other.
If you have your A/C up, why roll down the window? Put your phone up to the A/C! Or heck get one of those A/C vent cup holders and put your phone there. Heck, why not get a car-to-phone charger that is easily available at your local Radio Shack?
If you have your own vehicle, you don't need the turbine charger.
I think that software that can learn can be said to understand a problem just as much as a human can.
While you are at it, let's just have the machines replace us all. Since they can learn just like us, welcome to the Matrix.... or Futurama....
Or maybe we should just have the machines replace the editors.
they do nothing. For once, if the government had a CA authority and actually issue SSLs to companies that are registered with them, it would help. When you register for DBA (Doing Business As) or file articles of incorporation, they should be the ones to issue the certificates as they are the most qualified to judge authenticity and do ID checks. Isn't that the reason why we file these things with the government and NOT Verisign?
This is the one place the government DOES need to be a part of, and yet they do not. Government in all the wrong places.... go figures.
Or when people WANT to be verified online, then the government should be the ones issuing the certificates. When a person say they are Joe Smith, which type of ID do you believe more? An ID issued by some company or a government issued driver's license/ID?
The government actually should have a Certification Authority freely (or some nominal fee) available to its citizens.
While I run three networks, one at my house and two small business networks, in an "enterprise configuration" where the workstation desktops are controlled by a Windows (or properly configured SAMBA) domain controllers, you can easily go into the Group Policy and disable the builtin firewall for all computers. You can also specify that for laptops when they are in the company domain their firewall is disabled, while when they leave the network (I.E. a user's home network), the firewall option is available again.
In addition, if one is really worth their title as a corporate sysadmin (shame on those with the MCSE title and don't know how to do this), you can configure the group policy to open certain ports of all desktops for just what you need, while keeping the rest of the firewall up.
However, usually in a corporate environment, you would want the builtin firewall turned off, as the computers are already behind another firewall anyways before the internet. But for those paranoid sysadmins who fear their users' stupidity to download a trojan or bringin in a rouge system (for example), can turn on the builtin firewall as an added level of defense against virus/trojan/etc. brought in by stupid employees. (Though it shouldn't be a problem in the first place if the sysadmin is competent about setting appropriate user rights and enforcing company computing policies.)
The other thing is that SP2 contain security fixes that will help patch holes in the system, so you need it anyways even if you don't want the firewall. It is just that the firewall and the "Security Center" is the most notable visual change that everyone can easily see.
It is obvious that those agencies have never heard of it either. But, actually I have heard of it (in passing), but never knew too much about it or bother looking it up (until now).
Unplug the network cable and lock it up in a guarded vault. Only power and no other access, instant A+ security. You don't even need to fiddle with password security.
Based upon what I read in five minutes here. Please feel free to correct me if I made a mistake somewhere.
Law making flows like this depending upon what type of law: Commission -----> Parliament
\___> Council
Basically, ONLY the Commission can PROPOSE bills, only they can come up with bills. Then Parliament AND/OR Council can only say yes or no. But they are not allowed to write anything other than approve or disapprove.
So for those who understands U.S. Civics 101, the translation is that: -- The Commission, Parliament, and Council all have some degree of legislative powers (in the U.S. legistlative sense), one giant legislative body divided in to three parts. -- The Commission is like the congressional committies in the U.S. that discuss the nit-pick details that make the bill. -- Then depending on the bill (see below) to be made to law, the Council is like the Senate, and the Parliament is like the House of Representatives.
There are three types of "bills", and they are categorized by the procedure needed to pass them: A.) Codecision B.) Consultation and C.) Assent
A lot of things falls under codecision, and if that is the case, the Parliament and the Council works just like the U.S. House and Senate respectively (Or Lower House, Upper House). However, if it is a bill that only requires the consultation procedure, then only the Council needs to approve. The Parliament just "recommends" things to it. If a bill requires assent, then it is inversed, the Parliament approves, and the Council recommends.
Most things requires codecision, but it seems most codecision things are things like: --preventing and combating fraud --education --equal opportunities and equal treatment
The things that we, the people, would care about is made the most difficult to pass (requiring both Council and Parliament).
While most decisions requiring consultation are things related to government things, like: -- Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters -- Revision of the Treaties -- Tax arrangements
And the Council is like the Senate, one rep. per nation. Relatively easy to pass.
While things requiring assent deal mainly with money, membership, and bickering procedures: -- specific tasks of the European Central Bank -- the uniform electoral procedure for the European Parliament -- the accession of new member states
IMHO, the system is messed up. Not only does the Commission come up with the law, they are the ones that enforce it. Does anyone see too much power in the Commission?
...it proposes legislation, policies and programmes of action and it is responsible for implementing the decisions of Parliament and the Council.
Proposes legislation AND implementing decisions!? That sounds like legislative AND executive power. Someone must have failed Republics Civics 101 or have been in the Socialist Party-Government class for too long.
The Parliament only has the power to dismiss the Commission. That is not much, because they either dismiss a rebellious Commission and risk to paralyize the EU; or they let the Commission run with the Commission trampling on the people's rights and the Parliament's own power.
Furthermore, the Courts is almost nowhere in the picture. I have no more to say than this, the seperation of powers are all wrong.
Actually, it would help the users of other languages if the language abbreviation of the codepage used was displayed.
For example, if someone uses the Russian language to render www.paypal.com, not only should the color change (if the user wants it), but it should display an icon to the left of the site's icon with the letters RU. So, if the letters US appears to the right of the paypal icon with the address http://www.paypal.com/ then you would know it is the right place. But if you see RU with the paypal icon and http://www.paypal.com/ then you know you are in the wrong place.
This would allow it so that if you DO want to go to another language version, the codepage icon with the letters will help you identify that you are going to the correct language version of the URL. This also helps complement against color spoofing if you do want to use the color method. Some people are color-blind.
If I remember correctly from my days interning at a cable company, there are other things you forgot to mention, which makes your statement somewhat inaccurate.
Privately funded cable systems OTOH, have no requirement to allow competitors to use their infrastructure. The difference is that a cable company is not obligated to allow a competitor to sell cable or Internet service over their lines. Because connectivity is a necessary element of Internet service, blocking/restricting connectivity is a (partial) failure to fulfill their obligation the service contract. Applying "equal access" to viop would mean allowing other phone service prviders to use the voip servers that the cableco owned.
In some municipalities, counties, or states, there are laws governing the usage of cable similar to the telephone company. Usually, because the cable company must obtain the rights of way through the cities, counties, etc. those government usually sets up conditions and requirements for how the cable must be operated in exchange for such rights to dig up the streets and run cable through the streets or over them. Some cities have requirements in allowing other television stations and possibily competitors to use the lines. Hence why cable companies must carry common airwave channels also on their lines.
As for internet service, that is actually governed by the common carrier laws (if I remember correctly), as I remember that the cable company, that I was working for briefly, was legally forced to allow customers to have Earthlink as their ISP instead of the cable company's own ISP. So, to extrapolate upon that logic, Vonage must be allowed to go through the cable company's ISP by extension of the common carrier rule as we have discussed.
If you know multiple languages, you can make it even harder for people to guess your passphrase through grammar patterns and dictionary attacks.
By combining different languages, I.E. English with Russian, or English with Japanese (romanized), or English and Spanish; you can make a dictionary attack difficult as you will remember where to apply the transition of grammar and language, but the attacker will have to guess more on where the transition of language should take place.
In addition, it will require the brute force attacker to not just load the English dictionary, but also the dictionary of another language, increasing the number of entries. And since it will be a relatively coherent sentence to you, you can still remember it. Giving you greater variety.
If I remember my accounting lessons correctly, a company's size of assets or the lack of liabilities alone doesn't mean that a company is in financial trouble. It is perfectly normal if a company is running in the red, having more debts than assetsm or not making a profit.
What kills a company is cash flow, if you can't pay the bills, you won't have the chance to recover from any losses. It won't matter how much assets or cash you have on hand, if your cash flow is a big enough negative.
Through our shotty intelligence we "guess" that it is "highly likely" that Saddam has nuclear weapons, and then we invade; but when the North Koreans freely admit they have nuclear weapons (unlike Saddam whom denied it more) we sit there idly by!?
I would think that if the North Koreans admitted to it, it would be the PERFECT rallying point for a war because "they possess WMDs!"
We invaded Iraq based on rescueing the citizens from its dictator, and because they very likely have WMDs. Now we sit and negotiate when they "publicly claim" they DO HAVE WMDs and they are treating the citizens worst? What kind of logic is that!? Bush-logic?
According to a secion of a technical paper for the Blu-ray disc format found here the encryption used to protect contents will involve:
"DES (Data Encryption Standard) with a key length of 56 bits has been adopted, and Triple DES with a key length of 112 bits has been adopted for the key generating process. In addition, for the exclusion of illegal devices (System Renewability) and for the prevention of illegal copying, RKB (Renewal Key Block) information and a Disc ID unique to the disc are written in ROM area of the disc. Each recorder (player) has a device key, which differs depending on the manufacturer or the machine. An encryption key is generated by combining the device key and RKB. Therefore, illegal devices can be excluded by updating the RKB information. Furthermore, illegal copying is also prevented by using a disc ID unique to the disc to generate the encryption key, because even a bit-by-bit copy cannot generate the encryption key."
Sound similar to the DVD encryption ideas, but now with longer keys.
If my memory serves me right, almost all Microsoft Product comes with a Certificate of Authenticity, which has the CD Key printed on it. And I would think that you would need to give that to the new owner-to-be for them to use the software. Is that certificate not sufficent proof? I mean it DOES PROVE IT IS A LEGITIMATE ITEM, doesn't it? Do you REALLY NEED the receipt and box? Is that certificate not good enough? If it isn't then why did they make the freaking thing anyways?
Also, isn't the CD itself has a protection to PROVE IT IS REAL!? That little shinning hologram near the center? (In the case of Win2K the whole disk is like that.) You are transferring EVERYTHING you have. Do you really need the box when it no longer exists?
Slashdot Mirror
While the speed gap is certainly now closer between USB 2.0 and 1394a (regular FireWire, or iLink for those Sony people), it would be nice if the next generation iPods use the 1394b connection instead for those speed demons who want to sync and go quickly.
Though an interesting feature that would be nice for the iPod is a file browser built-in, where you can connect two iPods together and transfer files when you use the iPod like an HD. That would be indeed useful.
Another thing that would be nice is a flip in adaptor for the iPod so you can quickly plug in the iPod like a memory stick, instead of fishing for cables to plug it in. Those little things would be nice.
If you have your A/C up, why roll down the window? Put your phone up to the A/C! Or heck get one of those A/C vent cup holders and put your phone there. Heck, why not get a car-to-phone charger that is easily available at your local Radio Shack?
If you have your own vehicle, you don't need the turbine charger.
Anything you say will be used in a court of law, and anything you don't say will be used to prosecute you for copyright infringement.
they do nothing. For once, if the government had a CA authority and actually issue SSLs to companies that are registered with them, it would help. When you register for DBA (Doing Business As) or file articles of incorporation, they should be the ones to issue the certificates as they are the most qualified to judge authenticity and do ID checks. Isn't that the reason why we file these things with the government and NOT Verisign?
/ personal/index.html
This is the one place the government DOES need to be a part of, and yet they do not. Government in all the wrong places.... go figures.
Or when people WANT to be verified online, then the government should be the ones issuing the certificates. When a person say they are Joe Smith, which type of ID do you believe more? An ID issued by some company or a government issued driver's license/ID?
The government actually should have a Certification Authority freely (or some nominal fee) available to its citizens.
See, proper government involvement: http://www.hongkongpost.gov.hk/product/ecert/type
While I run three networks, one at my house and two small business networks, in an "enterprise configuration" where the workstation desktops are controlled by a Windows (or properly configured SAMBA) domain controllers, you can easily go into the Group Policy and disable the builtin firewall for all computers. You can also specify that for laptops when they are in the company domain their firewall is disabled, while when they leave the network (I.E. a user's home network), the firewall option is available again.
In addition, if one is really worth their title as a corporate sysadmin (shame on those with the MCSE title and don't know how to do this), you can configure the group policy to open certain ports of all desktops for just what you need, while keeping the rest of the firewall up.
However, usually in a corporate environment, you would want the builtin firewall turned off, as the computers are already behind another firewall anyways before the internet. But for those paranoid sysadmins who fear their users' stupidity to download a trojan or bringin in a rouge system (for example), can turn on the builtin firewall as an added level of defense against virus/trojan/etc. brought in by stupid employees. (Though it shouldn't be a problem in the first place if the sysadmin is competent about setting appropriate user rights and enforcing company computing policies.)
The other thing is that SP2 contain security fixes that will help patch holes in the system, so you need it anyways even if you don't want the firewall. It is just that the firewall and the "Security Center" is the most notable visual change that everyone can easily see.
It is obvious that those agencies have never heard of it either. But, actually I have heard of it (in passing), but never knew too much about it or bother looking it up (until now).
Unplug the network cable and lock it up in a guarded vault. Only power and no other access, instant A+ security. You don't even need to fiddle with password security.
Law making flows like this depending upon what type of law:
Commission -----> Parliament
\___> Council
Basically, ONLY the Commission can PROPOSE bills, only they can come up with bills. Then Parliament AND/OR Council can only say yes or no. But they are not allowed to write anything other than approve or disapprove.
So for those who understands U.S. Civics 101, the translation is that:
-- The Commission, Parliament, and Council all have some degree of legislative powers (in the U.S. legistlative sense), one giant legislative body divided in to three parts.
-- The Commission is like the congressional committies in the U.S. that discuss the nit-pick details that make the bill.
-- Then depending on the bill (see below) to be made to law, the Council is like the Senate, and the Parliament is like the House of Representatives.
There are three types of "bills", and they are categorized by the procedure needed to pass them:
A.) Codecision
B.) Consultation
and
C.) Assent
A lot of things falls under codecision, and if that is the case, the Parliament and the Council works just like the U.S. House and Senate respectively (Or Lower House, Upper House). However, if it is a bill that only requires the consultation procedure, then only the Council needs to approve. The Parliament just "recommends" things to it. If a bill requires assent, then it is inversed, the Parliament approves, and the Council recommends.
Most things requires codecision, but it seems most codecision things are things like:
--preventing and combating fraud
--education
--equal opportunities and equal treatment
The things that we, the people, would care about is made the most difficult to pass (requiring both Council and Parliament).
While most decisions requiring consultation are things related to government things, like:
-- Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters
-- Revision of the Treaties
-- Tax arrangements
And the Council is like the Senate, one rep. per nation. Relatively easy to pass.
While things requiring assent deal mainly with money, membership, and bickering procedures:
-- specific tasks of the European Central Bank
-- the uniform electoral procedure for the European Parliament
-- the accession of new member states
IMHO, the system is messed up. Not only does the Commission come up with the law, they are the ones that enforce it. Does anyone see too much power in the Commission?
Proposes legislation AND implementing decisions!? That sounds like legislative AND executive power. Someone must have failed Republics Civics 101 or have been in the Socialist Party-Government class for too long.
The Parliament only has the power to dismiss the Commission. That is not much, because they either dismiss a rebellious Commission and risk to paralyize the EU; or they let the Commission run with the Commission trampling on the people's rights and the Parliament's own power.
Furthermore, the Courts is almost nowhere in the picture. I have no more to say than this, the seperation of powers are all wrong.
Actually, it would help the users of other languages if the language abbreviation of the codepage used was displayed.
For example, if someone uses the Russian language to render www.paypal.com, not only should the color change (if the user wants it), but it should display an icon to the left of the site's icon with the letters RU. So, if the letters US appears to the right of the paypal icon with the address http://www.paypal.com/ then you would know it is the right place. But if you see RU with the paypal icon and http://www.paypal.com/ then you know you are in the wrong place.
This would allow it so that if you DO want to go to another language version, the codepage icon with the letters will help you identify that you are going to the correct language version of the URL. This also helps complement against color spoofing if you do want to use the color method. Some people are color-blind.
In some municipalities, counties, or states, there are laws governing the usage of cable similar to the telephone company. Usually, because the cable company must obtain the rights of way through the cities, counties, etc. those government usually sets up conditions and requirements for how the cable must be operated in exchange for such rights to dig up the streets and run cable through the streets or over them. Some cities have requirements in allowing other television stations and possibily competitors to use the lines. Hence why cable companies must carry common airwave channels also on their lines.
As for internet service, that is actually governed by the common carrier laws (if I remember correctly), as I remember that the cable company, that I was working for briefly, was legally forced to allow customers to have Earthlink as their ISP instead of the cable company's own ISP. So, to extrapolate upon that logic, Vonage must be allowed to go through the cable company's ISP by extension of the common carrier rule as we have discussed.
Maybe we should make the FireFox browser invert the question and say "Are you sure you do not want to run this signed application?"
That way, when users instinctively just press "Yes" it will just go away and not install.
If you know multiple languages, you can make it even harder for people to guess your passphrase through grammar patterns and dictionary attacks.
By combining different languages, I.E. English with Russian, or English with Japanese (romanized), or English and Spanish; you can make a dictionary attack difficult as you will remember where to apply the transition of grammar and language, but the attacker will have to guess more on where the transition of language should take place.
In addition, it will require the brute force attacker to not just load the English dictionary, but also the dictionary of another language, increasing the number of entries. And since it will be a relatively coherent sentence to you, you can still remember it. Giving you greater variety.
If I remember my accounting lessons correctly, a company's size of assets or the lack of liabilities alone doesn't mean that a company is in financial trouble. It is perfectly normal if a company is running in the red, having more debts than assetsm or not making a profit. What kills a company is cash flow, if you can't pay the bills, you won't have the chance to recover from any losses. It won't matter how much assets or cash you have on hand, if your cash flow is a big enough negative.
Can someone explain this to me?
Through our shotty intelligence we "guess" that it is "highly likely" that Saddam has nuclear weapons, and then we invade; but when the North Koreans freely admit they have nuclear weapons (unlike Saddam whom denied it more) we sit there idly by!?
I would think that if the North Koreans admitted to it, it would be the PERFECT rallying point for a war because "they possess WMDs!"
We invaded Iraq based on rescueing the citizens from its dictator, and because they very likely have WMDs. Now we sit and negotiate when they "publicly claim" they DO HAVE WMDs and they are treating the citizens worst? What kind of logic is that!? Bush-logic?
According to a secion of a technical paper for the Blu-ray disc format found here the encryption used to protect contents will involve:
"DES (Data Encryption Standard) with a key length of 56 bits has been adopted, and Triple DES with a key length of 112 bits has been adopted for the key generating process. In addition, for the exclusion of illegal devices (System Renewability) and for the prevention of illegal copying, RKB (Renewal Key Block) information and a Disc ID unique to the disc are written in ROM area of the disc. Each recorder (player) has a device key, which differs depending on the manufacturer or the machine. An encryption key is generated by combining the device key and RKB. Therefore, illegal devices can be excluded by updating the RKB information. Furthermore, illegal copying is also prevented by using a disc ID unique to the disc to generate the encryption key, because even a bit-by-bit copy cannot generate the encryption key."
Sound similar to the DVD encryption ideas, but now with longer keys.
If my memory serves me right, almost all Microsoft Product comes with a Certificate of Authenticity, which has the CD Key printed on it. And I would think that you would need to give that to the new owner-to-be for them to use the software. Is that certificate not sufficent proof? I mean it DOES PROVE IT IS A LEGITIMATE ITEM, doesn't it? Do you REALLY NEED the receipt and box? Is that certificate not good enough? If it isn't then why did they make the freaking thing anyways?
Also, isn't the CD itself has a protection to PROVE IT IS REAL!? That little shinning hologram near the center? (In the case of Win2K the whole disk is like that.) You are transferring EVERYTHING you have. Do you really need the box when it no longer exists?