However, Google -- IIRC -- keeps them forever, while other sites may keep several months' worth or a year. Also, Google is a search site, not just articles. So, if you searched for something today that may be found in retrospect to be sinister at a later date, then you can easly become a suspect.
Not something that respects visitors' privacy.
Interesting. I had not heard this. Is this mentioned in their privacy policy or something?
The times I've used VLC (on windows anyway, never used it on linux), the A/V resync caused a noticable change in audio pitch. I've never noticed such a pitch change in mplayer (though it does take a while to resync)
If the quality of Dirac is higher it should of course be preferred. That said, I have not seen any video encoded with either, except for that Java Theora implementation last week (?), so I don't know which one is better.
Another concern is their approach to privacy. They log every search tied to the IP address forever.
And (e.g.) slashdot doesn't keep logs?
The same in Gmail, where they don't delete messages
As I recall, this rumor started from a CYOA provision in the gmail TOS agreement. It's not really practical to instantaniously zap your emails from every backup archive whenever you delete something, so they obviously can't promise to destroy your emails immediately.
Now one might wonder if the data we are placing into a "quantum medium" will somehow be detected by entities who know how to detect such events.
Uhh... no. You've been watching too much sci-fi. There's no such thing as a "quantum medium". It's just a method to create a one-time pad which will fail detectably if eavesdropped on.
DHCP Client, automatic. Unnecessary on most home machines. Should be disabled by default.
Many, many broadband ISPs use DHCP to grant IP addresses. What's wrong with it being on? It'll be shut off or otherwise made inactive if you hardcode your IP.
DNS Client, automatic. Unnecessary on most home machines. Should be disabled by default.
DNS is sort of essential to the internet. Even if this is only a cacheing daemon, it's still valuable.
[...] Secondary Logon, automatic (enables starting processes under alternate credentials). Unnecessary on most home machines. Should be disabled by default.
Wouldn't this make it possible for users to become administrator only when absolutely necessary, instead of all the time?
Firstly, the halting problem is trivially decidable for any particular program, the program either halts or it doesn't. There is no mystery here, it is just impossible to write a program that will *check* whether an *arbitrary* program will halt or not. There is no magical program that will do both or neither, this is because programs halt or they do not. The undecidability of the halting problem demonstrates the limitations of computers, not the limitations of mathematicians.
And what about humans? There must be some program X such that the entire human race cannot evaluate whether X halts. Granted, most likely the human race cannot construct X either.
Based on principles similar to those proposed for so-called "Trusted Computing", RPOW allows third parties to dynamically and remotely verify what program is running on the RPOW server. The RPOW server is implemented on a high-quality secure processor, the IBM 4758 PCI Cryptographic Coprocessor, which has been validated to the highest level of security publicly available, FIPS-140 level 4. The 4758 is a self-contained single-board computer which has its own device key, generated on-board, which never leaves the card. That key can issue cryptographically signed attestations which describe the software configuration running on the card, including the SHA-1 hash of the application program.
How do we know it's actually signing the running image? For all we know it's just an ordinary computer programmed to claim it's a 4758.
Okay, I'll bite. It's impossible to reverse a hash function which accepts an input larger than its output - the number of possible results, in an ideal hash with an unrestricted input size, is infinite. Hashes may, however, be vulnerable to collisions, where just one input data is found that produces a given output data. This may or may not be the original input (probably not), but it doesn't matter for many cryptographic uses - it's broken all the same.
They aren't specifying the types of security measures that will be used (security through obscurity?)
Obscurity does not decrease security in and of itself. If you have a truly secure system, obscurity may increase the security somewhat. However, if your system is insecure, obscurity won't stop a determined adversary.
You can only have one instance of word open at a time. If you try to open another, it just pokes the running instance with some form of IPC and brings its window to the top.
Earlier in the thread a published paper was linked explaining how one could have evolved. I am not a microbiologist, so I don't know if it's BS, but I doubt you are either. Are you qualified to determine how likely a flagellum is to evolve? And have you considered the fact that a flagellum isn't the only possible construction of chemicals that would allow a bacterium to move - while it is improbable for that particular design to crop up, the chances of any design for moving a bacterium times the number of bacteria in existence is likely to be quite large indeed.
Good luck. How much data passes through internet connections every second in the EU? How many hard drives would that need? Heck, hard drives might not be fast enough. There's no way to actually record all of that. And anything important should be encrypted anyway - there could be a sniffer on your cable modem local loop at any time, as it's a broadcast technology.
At some point in the chain, an ET intelligent life evolved via natural selection, in small, explainable quanta -- pure Darwinian evolution, without the need for a Creator of Intelligent Designer.
I just don't think that it happened here, on Earth.
First, why can't Earth be the first in the chain? Second, the probability of one intelligence arising spontaneously, then choosing to seed another intelligence elsewhere will always be less than that of life arising spontaneously. The more layers, the less likely. Why not just assume life evolved on Earth until we see convincing evidence to the contrary?
If there's an ET that seeds life on this planet, then you still need to explain how the ET came about. So, you've just added to the puzzle the question of why and how the ET seeded life - the origins of life are still unknown. By Occam's Razor, this argument is not helpful.
Dig the invite out of your sent mail and resend it manually. I haven't tested this, but it might work. If that fails, maybe use xrl.us or some other link shortener.
Slashdot Mirror
The times I've used VLC (on windows anyway, never used it on linux), the A/V resync caused a noticable change in audio pitch. I've never noticed such a pitch change in mplayer (though it does take a while to resync)
If the quality of Dirac is higher it should of course be preferred. That said, I have not seen any video encoded with either, except for that Java Theora implementation last week (?), so I don't know which one is better.
" You are not authorized to access bug #226572." Is this a security bug?
And (e.g.) slashdot doesn't keep logs?
As I recall, this rumor started from a CYOA provision in the gmail TOS agreement. It's not really practical to instantaniously zap your emails from every backup archive whenever you delete something, so they obviously can't promise to destroy your emails immediately.
Well, it worked for the US.
Correct, and the link shows why it's not being deleted, for the OP's reference.
The article you referenced is in Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion
Many, many broadband ISPs use DHCP to grant IP addresses. What's wrong with it being on? It'll be shut off or otherwise made inactive if you hardcode your IP.
DNS is sort of essential to the internet. Even if this is only a cacheing daemon, it's still valuable.
Wouldn't this make it possible for users to become administrator only when absolutely necessary, instead of all the time?
And what about humans? There must be some program X such that the entire human race cannot evaluate whether X halts. Granted, most likely the human race cannot construct X either.
How do we know it's actually signing the running image? For all we know it's just an ordinary computer programmed to claim it's a 4758.
I consider technology to be a natural extension of evolution - it's just that the progress is not totally random, so it's a lot more effective.
Okay, I'll bite. It's impossible to reverse a hash function which accepts an input larger than its output - the number of possible results, in an ideal hash with an unrestricted input size, is infinite. Hashes may, however, be vulnerable to collisions, where just one input data is found that produces a given output data. This may or may not be the original input (probably not), but it doesn't matter for many cryptographic uses - it's broken all the same.
Obscurity does not decrease security in and of itself. If you have a truly secure system, obscurity may increase the security somewhat. However, if your system is insecure, obscurity won't stop a determined adversary.
You can only have one instance of word open at a time. If you try to open another, it just pokes the running instance with some form of IPC and brings its window to the top.
Earlier in the thread a published paper was linked explaining how one could have evolved. I am not a microbiologist, so I don't know if it's BS, but I doubt you are either. Are you qualified to determine how likely a flagellum is to evolve? And have you considered the fact that a flagellum isn't the only possible construction of chemicals that would allow a bacterium to move - while it is improbable for that particular design to crop up, the chances of any design for moving a bacterium times the number of bacteria in existence is likely to be quite large indeed.
What, like CD-RW and DVD-RW?
I doubt they have anything to crack the likes of 256-bit AES and 2048-bit RSA.
Good luck. How much data passes through internet connections every second in the EU? How many hard drives would that need? Heck, hard drives might not be fast enough. There's no way to actually record all of that. And anything important should be encrypted anyway - there could be a sniffer on your cable modem local loop at any time, as it's a broadcast technology.
Nuclear power can be used in transportation to power electrolysis to generate hydrogen for fuel cells, or simply used to recharge a battery.
First, why can't Earth be the first in the chain?
Second, the probability of one intelligence arising spontaneously, then choosing to seed another intelligence elsewhere will always be less than that of life arising spontaneously. The more layers, the less likely. Why not just assume life evolved on Earth until we see convincing evidence to the contrary?
If there's an ET that seeds life on this planet, then you still need to explain how the ET came about. So, you've just added to the puzzle the question of why and how the ET seeded life - the origins of life are still unknown. By Occam's Razor, this argument is not helpful.
Dig the invite out of your sent mail and resend it manually. I haven't tested this, but it might work. If that fails, maybe use xrl.us or some other link shortener.