How could you have known when I said "they" I was not referring to the market collective of companies who are responsible for satellite production and launch?
Both companies form a "they" whose intention is to put satellites into orbit as cheaply as possible. That's the crux of my argument; that his argument is bullshit because there exists no such seperation in interests of the two companies, *unless* there is some sort of price-fixing among rocket manufacturers. This idea to me, maybe not to you, is hilarious. The thought of the great rocket tycoons sitting in a smokey room like huns plotting their control of the rocket market.. the rocket market! It's funny! Why do you have to be such a pedantic ass?
How could you have known when I said "those companies are just dying to spend as much money as possible trying to get their satellites in orbit" that I did not mean the companies #2 in the first place. Here's where you say, "No, (smart ass comment here), the satellites are not the property of company #2", but then I say, well, if a trucker is driving down the freeway, he will refer to his truck as "my truck", and his cargo as "my cargo", even though it's not his personal property.
Anyway, I was just making a joke. Quit being pedantic.
Shawyer argues that for companies investing billions in rockets and launch sites, a new technology that leads to fewer launches and longer-lasting satellites has little commercial appeal.
Yeah, those companies are just dying to spend as much money as possible trying to get their satellites in orbit. They are looking into purchasing rockets made from ground up hundred dollar bills.
I hope his invention is better than his explanations for why he has no investors (I know, I know, it's not).
Not to defend big record labels, but they certainly have promotion costs. Hits don't consistently come from major labels for no reason; they do TONS of marketing to make sure that their acts sell. Plenty of money goes in to making sure 12 year old Cameron really likes that new Brittney Spears album. Getting people to buy that crap doesn't come cheap:)
I had (crap, I still *have*) an old two-head VCR for years that was seemingly immune to VHS copy protection. I often wondered if the fact that the two VCRs I was using to dub were a mix of two and four head units had any effect on it. No tape it recorded ever had copy protection problems, and it recorded a lot of tapes.
Also, wasn't it possible to just run the signal through an RF amplifier to sufficiently remove the effects of copy protection? Perhaps it normalized or 'smoothed out' the vertical sync noise?
Somethingawful posted what is presumably the first part in a series of gold from the AOL search logs:
http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4016
These would definitely fit in the 'basketcase' category...
Well, coax cable may be capable of carrying large amounts of data, but the signal on the line isn't just yours, it's your entire area's signal. You might be sharing that signal with tens of thousands of other households.
Even if fiber is normally arranged in the same way (is it?), the throughput potential is still so much greater...
But yeah, they should nuke those damn analog channels and give me some real bandwidth:)
Frank! Glad you could make it to the clam bake. I am not a lousy butler! That nosewheel feels mushy! He tried to kill me with a forklift! The master will not approve! I accuse my parents! Hirohito Gamera! Hirohito Gamera! No Lupita! No! There was no monster! It was after the apocalypse... Daddy, I want a coke! It stinks! Hi, I'm Max Keller. Master Ninja Theme Song!
From what I've gathered, basically, they seek to stop the threat of DNS poisoning and passive-snooping man-in-the-middle impersonation of a users' session by tagging cookies in the client's browser with an IP address rather than a domain name, then redirecting users from the DNS-resolved websites to that same IP (only to send their cookies), and ensuring (on the machine pointed to by that IP) that the IP address of the connection which was sent the redirection and the IP address that is now sending back the cookie to match up.
This does seem like quite a bit of work to go through to stop what are probably relatively uncommon attacks though.
And Fry's pushes the ECS boards pretty hard too. I've bought several CPU/Motherboard combos from Fry's and the motherboard is always guess who.. ECS. Every time I think, well the CPU costs $180 on its own so for $200 I can get the motherboard and it's worth the risk if its a bad board. And guess what? Every time the motherboard has gone right in the garbage after a week or two. ECS motherboards, even when working, have always been extremely bafflingly unstable. I've replaced every one I've bought with MSI and Soyo and the landfill has a couple more motherboards. In my experience they usually are unstable for a couple months, then after 4 or 5 months, die completely.
An article about the quality assurance and manfacturing procedures of ECS boards in China makes me laugh. I picture a dirty sawdust floor with drunken laborers mashing together boards with a tack hammer, a 50 cent cigarette lighter, and a spool of burnt solder.
They took err jeeerbs!!
But seriously, the perception about H1-B holders being needed to supplement the supposed lack of American training is, to me, rather insulting. Maybe I have too high an estimation of myself and my peers, but it seems to me that the US is pretty rich with technical talent. Trying to dilute the marketplace with indentured servants certainly is not going to help us get paid our due, or motivate us to earn it.
Anyone else remember EFNet #quake at the time? IIRC there was over 1,500 people in it. The channel was +m obviously, and the only speaking person was 'ddt' (id's Dave Taylor) saying.. almost there. Alllmost.... sickly teasing.
Is this really so new? 'Super Mario Brothers' didn't have a skip-all-levels-and-go-straight-to-bowser option. 'Pitfall' didn't have a.... OK, nevermind 'Pitfall'. But seriously, games are all about challenges. If you want to cheat, that's what they make cheat codes for.
Yeah, Mulholland took a lot of crap on the disaster but was ultimately (mostly) cleared by most historians, geologists and engineers I've heard. At the time, they lacked the knowledge and equipment to know of the true nature of the rock in San Francesquito canyon.
Say what you will about the guy, but he came up from being a ditch digger to chief engineer of DWP, you don't see that kind of stuff anymore.
I grew up very near the St. Francis dam disaster, we used to hang out on old giant slabs of concrete that were miles downstream from the former reservoir.
But the point is that, in firefox at least, you are not warned if the certificate in question has changed. Instead you are merely presented with the new certificate. I was pointing out that SSH actually throws up a giant warning and prevents you from connecting to a site if their host key has changed, and that it would be nice if firefox would show some kind of warning that the cert has actually changed from a previously recognized cert, rather than just telling you that a new unrecognized cert was encountered.
True, but I'm not trying to say that using self-signed certs offers security to compare to certs signed by real CAs. I'm just pointing out that the behavoir of the self-signed cert popups in browsers is lacking, and could learn from SSH.
Self-signed certificates can be very useful for a situation where you want *more* security than plain unencrypted HTTP, but don't want to pay money for it. If you wanted to have SSL encryption on a LAN, but the server's hostname is not a real hostname on the internet, I don't think you even *could* get a real CA-signed cert for it. Self-signed certs fill a real void when it's not possible to simply use real CA-signed certs. We can't just ignore that.
What would be nice, is to see browsers handle this the same way SSH does with host key checking; when you first connect to the site, you get the pop-up about the self-signed certificate, and you accept it permanently. Then you connect to what you think is the site the next day, but instead of the real site you get a malicious impersonator of the site, and its cert is different. Rather than getting a new pop-up about the new self-signed cert that looks identical to the pop-up of the old one, there should be a warning that the cert had unexpectedly changed, in a similar panic fashion to SSH's output when the host key changes, so it really gets some attention.
I do all the same things with MythTV, and that's its "intended purpose". Only I didn't have to buy any MS gaming boxes or $400 worth of MS software to do it, and I control exactly how it works. It's *mine* from source code to hardware.
But hey, OTOH, a lot of people like Tivo, too.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, they could at least proofread their fancy letter before sending it.
http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2006/09/ 13/n/HeadlineNews/HOME-SEARCHED/resources_bcn_html
For the record, Keyhole's software already had 3d terrain before Google purchased it.
Heh. You suck.
How could you have known when I said "they" I was not referring to the market collective of companies who are responsible for satellite production and launch?
Both companies form a "they" whose intention is to put satellites into orbit as cheaply as possible. That's the crux of my argument; that his argument is bullshit because there exists no such seperation in interests of the two companies, *unless* there is some sort of price-fixing among rocket manufacturers. This idea to me, maybe not to you, is hilarious. The thought of the great rocket tycoons sitting in a smokey room like huns plotting their control of the rocket market.. the rocket market! It's funny! Why do you have to be such a pedantic ass?
How could you have known when I said "those companies are just dying to spend as much money as possible trying to get their satellites in orbit" that I did not mean the companies #2 in the first place. Here's where you say, "No, (smart ass comment here), the satellites are not the property of company #2", but then I say, well, if a trucker is driving down the freeway, he will refer to his truck as "my truck", and his cargo as "my cargo", even though it's not his personal property.
Anyway, I was just making a joke. Quit being pedantic.
Well, if you believe in the rocket monopolist conspiracy, I have a relativity drive I'd like to sell you. And a bridge in brooklyn.
I hope his invention is better than his explanations for why he has no investors (I know, I know, it's not).
...to making up addictions to justify my shortcomings.
Not to defend big record labels, but they certainly have promotion costs. Hits don't consistently come from major labels for no reason; they do TONS of marketing to make sure that their acts sell. Plenty of money goes in to making sure 12 year old Cameron really likes that new Brittney Spears album. Getting people to buy that crap doesn't come cheap :)
I had (crap, I still *have*) an old two-head VCR for years that was seemingly immune to VHS copy protection. I often wondered if the fact that the two VCRs I was using to dub were a mix of two and four head units had any effect on it. No tape it recorded ever had copy protection problems, and it recorded a lot of tapes.
Also, wasn't it possible to just run the signal through an RF amplifier to sufficiently remove the effects of copy protection? Perhaps it normalized or 'smoothed out' the vertical sync noise?
Somethingawful posted what is presumably the first part in a series of gold from the AOL search logs: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4016 These would definitely fit in the 'basketcase' category...
Well, coax cable may be capable of carrying large amounts of data, but the signal on the line isn't just yours, it's your entire area's signal. You might be sharing that signal with tens of thousands of other households. Even if fiber is normally arranged in the same way (is it?), the throughput potential is still so much greater... But yeah, they should nuke those damn analog channels and give me some real bandwidth :)
Frank! Glad you could make it to the clam bake.
I am not a lousy butler!
That nosewheel feels mushy!
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
The master will not approve!
I accuse my parents!
Hirohito Gamera! Hirohito Gamera!
No Lupita! No!
There was no monster!
It was after the apocalypse...
Daddy, I want a coke!
It stinks!
Hi, I'm Max Keller.
Master Ninja Theme Song!
Frank, push the button.
Have you ever looked through the Windows EULA? They practically have the rights to your house.
Yeah, they can do whatever the hell they want with your OS.
http://www.ravenwhite.com/files/activecookies--28_ Apr_06.pdf
From what I've gathered, basically, they seek to stop the threat of DNS poisoning and passive-snooping man-in-the-middle impersonation of a users' session by tagging cookies in the client's browser with an IP address rather than a domain name, then redirecting users from the DNS-resolved websites to that same IP (only to send their cookies), and ensuring (on the machine pointed to by that IP) that the IP address of the connection which was sent the redirection and the IP address that is now sending back the cookie to match up.
This does seem like quite a bit of work to go through to stop what are probably relatively uncommon attacks though.
And Fry's pushes the ECS boards pretty hard too. I've bought several CPU/Motherboard combos from Fry's and the motherboard is always guess who.. ECS. Every time I think, well the CPU costs $180 on its own so for $200 I can get the motherboard and it's worth the risk if its a bad board. And guess what? Every time the motherboard has gone right in the garbage after a week or two. ECS motherboards, even when working, have always been extremely bafflingly unstable. I've replaced every one I've bought with MSI and Soyo and the landfill has a couple more motherboards. In my experience they usually are unstable for a couple months, then after 4 or 5 months, die completely.
An article about the quality assurance and manfacturing procedures of ECS boards in China makes me laugh. I picture a dirty sawdust floor with drunken laborers mashing together boards with a tack hammer, a 50 cent cigarette lighter, and a spool of burnt solder.
They took err jeeerbs!! But seriously, the perception about H1-B holders being needed to supplement the supposed lack of American training is, to me, rather insulting. Maybe I have too high an estimation of myself and my peers, but it seems to me that the US is pretty rich with technical talent. Trying to dilute the marketplace with indentured servants certainly is not going to help us get paid our due, or motivate us to earn it.
Anyone else remember EFNet #quake at the time? IIRC there was over 1,500 people in it. The channel was +m obviously, and the only speaking person was 'ddt' (id's Dave Taylor) saying.. almost there. Alllmost.... sickly teasing.
I actually have logs of it. Good times.
Is this really so new? 'Super Mario Brothers' didn't have a skip-all-levels-and-go-straight-to-bowser option. 'Pitfall' didn't have a .... OK, nevermind 'Pitfall'. But seriously, games are all about challenges. If you want to cheat, that's what they make cheat codes for.
Say what you will about the guy, but he came up from being a ditch digger to chief engineer of DWP, you don't see that kind of stuff anymore.
I grew up very near the St. Francis dam disaster, we used to hang out on old giant slabs of concrete that were miles downstream from the former reservoir.
But the point is that, in firefox at least, you are not warned if the certificate in question has changed. Instead you are merely presented with the new certificate. I was pointing out that SSH actually throws up a giant warning and prevents you from connecting to a site if their host key has changed, and that it would be nice if firefox would show some kind of warning that the cert has actually changed from a previously recognized cert, rather than just telling you that a new unrecognized cert was encountered.
Self-signed certificates can be very useful for a situation where you want *more* security than plain unencrypted HTTP, but don't want to pay money for it. If you wanted to have SSL encryption on a LAN, but the server's hostname is not a real hostname on the internet, I don't think you even *could* get a real CA-signed cert for it. Self-signed certs fill a real void when it's not possible to simply use real CA-signed certs. We can't just ignore that.
What would be nice, is to see browsers handle this the same way SSH does with host key checking; when you first connect to the site, you get the pop-up about the self-signed certificate, and you accept it permanently. Then you connect to what you think is the site the next day, but instead of the real site you get a malicious impersonator of the site, and its cert is different. Rather than getting a new pop-up about the new self-signed cert that looks identical to the pop-up of the old one, there should be a warning that the cert had unexpectedly changed, in a similar panic fashion to SSH's output when the host key changes, so it really gets some attention.
http://wp.netscape.com/eng/ssl3/ssl-toc.html
I do all the same things with MythTV, and that's its "intended purpose". Only I didn't have to buy any MS gaming boxes or $400 worth of MS software to do it, and I control exactly how it works. It's *mine* from source code to hardware. But hey, OTOH, a lot of people like Tivo, too. ;)