Goats produce much less CO2 than cows. Yes, I've looked into this; we donate to Heifer International but I only donate goats (not cows) for this reason.
No, they purchased a domain name, set up servers to accept data sent to that domain, then collected that data. That their research had told them that the domain would be used by the botnet is incidental. If you mail your credit-card information to my domain, I haven't committed any crime if I accept it and turn it over to the authorities.
I attend several film festivals each year, which include several world premieres and advanced screenings. Some of those festivals can be pretty picky about even camera phones.
I guess I don't understand the original question. There's no secret website where all the items lack cameras, but almost every site lists a full spec for their products, including the presence (or lack of) camera. There is a market for those that don't want cameras, so devices exist and will continue to exist.
Instead of an iPhone, I have an iPod Touch, which costs half as much, has no monthly fee, and has all the same features except the cellular service, an external mic and speaker, and the camera. Then I have a phone that can do text and voice but, again, lacks a camera. My laptop has one, but I'm not taking that into movies all the time. If I was, I'd have ordered one without it and waited for it, just like you did with your Dell.
Alex the parrot's sudden death was actually a pretty sad story. Besides his dancing, he had one of the largest vocabularies ever known to a non-human - not just mimicry, but a real understanding of the meaning behind his words.
SydShamino's rule for superhero movie scripts: Increase the villain count by one for each sequel. Increase the sidekick/ally count by one every other sequel. When either count grows unmanageable, reboot!
1. Show that such endeavors could not be done through private enterprise alone.
No private enterprise funds research that won't pay off for 20 years. Not anymore. And yet past money spent towards such research did yield profitable and usable results.
2. More importantly, show that the ends justify the means - that the various violations of individual rights that are inherent in government interventions into the economy are justified by your good intentions.
There's no such violation of individual rights. I willingly ceded my rights to avoid income tax and spending on the general welfare when, as I turned 18, I failed to renounce my U.S. citizenship and seek asylum in another country.
So allow me to turn the question around on you: Why are you not complaining now that the current administration is putting us further and faster in debt than the last administration?
I recognize that our current economic situation requires actions against my - and Obama's - long term goals. Sometimes spending money is necessary, even when the overall goal is to reduce spending. And Obama has pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. That's further in debt, yeah, but it's certainly not faster in debt as you claim.
Or to put it another way: Which tea party were you at?
Personally I think my taxes are reasonable given the benefits I receive from my government. If anything, they could probably be raised a bit so the government wasn't needing to borrow to support me.
Just maybe, if he managed to stop growing the federal budget, but the GDP continued to grow, then this directive would encourage the government to shift resources from other items to basic R&D?
My guess is that basing it on GDP is based on... research, which indicated that investment based on a percent of GDP yielded the best results. Likely that research didn't base anything on federal spending (assuming the research was done in U.S. at all), and Obama doesn't like to read research and then casually change it to something more convenient.
Clinton, though, was helped by the dot-com boom, which was entirely NOT his doing (it's one of those things that just evolved, IMO, and Clinton was in office at the right time)
Yeah, it was really more his vice-president's doing, back in the 1980s.
A lifetime is generally unfair to a lot of authors - if the old dude wrote his greatest work only days, months, or two or three years before croaking, he and his estate make very little.
You don't seem to understand why we have copyright law. The purpose of copyright isn't to enrich the creator and his heirs, it's to encourage the creator to create more. If he dies, that's over. If the heirs want to get rich on creations, let them write their own shit. And don't bother with the "pass on the family business" thing, because if a plumber wants to pass his business on to his son, he better teach him plumbing.
And if an old dude keeps writing because he knows it will help his younger wife and children once he's gone, he's been suitably encouraged.
I wouldn't tie life to it at all. Just make it 50 years and be done. Or make it 15, $1 renewal for another 35.
The grocery list I jotted down this afternoon is subject to copyright.
While I agree with your sentiments, lists of items are not covered by copyright. Unless you like to add colorful commentary to your grocery lists, they are like lists of ingredients in a recipe and in the public domain.
yes, you looked at the car, and decided that "all the car you get" wasn't $100,000 worth - meaning that it didn't suitably substitute for the house and other expenses that you'd rather use the money on.
On the other hand, plenty of people look at a $100,000 BMW and think "you know, I will spend a lot of time in my car. being in my car is effectively half work and half hobby. and overall the value I get from that car is worth the cost."
BTW, I just realized that our UIDs are just 50 apart. Practically neighbors!
Apparently some time in 1999(?) we both decided to stop lurking and post something... =p
I'm talking about something different. Assuming you've compromised a user account, but did not have root, you could write CDs or floppy disks on that computer (which the user can do). Then on reboot you can use this method to become root.
The overall process would be a long, convoluted privilege escalation.
But there are already plenty of drugs that make you more creative but significantly less "smart". Why have people who can do both when you can hire one ritalin junkie and one tripper and have two excellent employees for specific roles?
Actually, it needs local access by necessity, unless you can think of a way to boot by removable media on someone else's computer remotely.
Is there a way to turn this into a privilege escalation exploit? Assuming you had gained local privileges, could you then write this file to any CD burnt by the computer, or any floppy disk inserted (heh)? Then if the machine happened to boot with that in the drive, and the drive order happened to prioritize removable media first, you could gain root access.
I'm sure there are still easier methods to get root access.
Machine has only an ethernet port and a power port, no other ports exposed. Internally, machine has been potted with a material that chemically bonds to both IC plastic and soldermask, so that removing the material would physically damage both the PCB and components.
Internal battery with >20 yr life monitors integrity of case panels in multiple redundant points, and arcs and melts flash if any disturbance is noted.
So yeah, you're right. Given sufficient time and resources such a machine would be broken in a way that preserved the internal data. But "sufficient time" could be a very, very long time. It would likely be more efficient to power it up and try to hack the software through the exposed ethernet port. And that's no different whether the attacker had physical access or not.
Because all of us drive a tractor-trailer every day, we shouldn't bother to solve the gasoline problem until the solution also works for heavy-duty diesel trucks. Clearly!
Think of your standard stereo unit. Nobody plugs things directly into the speakers. They plug it into the central box, and that central box has a selector mechanism that allows you to choose which audio signal gets to the speakers.
No offense, but the "standard stereo unit" is about 3 inches long, two inches wide, a quarter inch thick, and boots with a fruit-shaped logo on the screen. Many, many people, myself included, find a "home electronics system" as you describe to be very much a product of the 1990s - and very much out of date.
I'm much happier to have as few boxes as possible, and just plug them directly into the TV.
Oh, is that all? I can watch a live event with just a tv and cable plugged into its back.
And how do you do that when the live event isn't being carried on that cable, because you don't pay for service or your provider simply doesn't carry the feed?
So the wireless router, cables and receiver were all free?
For someone who already has a computer, a home wireless network, and a big modern television, but who wants to watch streaming video on a bigger screen, yes. Things I already own, when used in a new application, are free for that new application. I bought and paid for the items for a different application, and "got my money's worth" for that other purpose, so anything extra is, well, a free extra.
If we do neither, and see where the new coastlines are after the oceans rise, we could solve the world hunger problem without expending any effort at all.
rights of the creator of that work to have a say in how and when its reproduced that are being preserved.
You have it backwards. The creator loses his rights when he chooses to publish his work, instead of destroying all manuscripts and keeping it to himself. The moment the work is published it becomes part of humanity's cultural heritage, good or bad.
In reward for that choice, to share his work with the world, the creator is given the privilege of limited control over the distribution of his work, for a limited time. This is a reward for his choice to publish, not a right inherent to creations.
The only right a creator has, in my opinion, is that of attribution. Everything else is a privilege. While you don't claim it in your post, others that use your line of reasoning extend it to say that creators have a right to profit from their work, or have a right to recall their work and prevent further distribution of existing copies, or to have those rights extend indefinitely through generations. And those such "rights" detract from our cultural heritage, working to hurt the thing that creative rights encourage. And that leads to rebellion where even the privileges granted to creators are ignored by the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Goats produce much less CO2 than cows. Yes, I've looked into this; we donate to Heifer International but I only donate goats (not cows) for this reason.
No, they purchased a domain name, set up servers to accept data sent to that domain, then collected that data. That their research had told them that the domain would be used by the botnet is incidental. If you mail your credit-card information to my domain, I haven't committed any crime if I accept it and turn it over to the authorities.
I attend several film festivals each year, which include several world premieres and advanced screenings. Some of those festivals can be pretty picky about even camera phones.
I guess I don't understand the original question. There's no secret website where all the items lack cameras, but almost every site lists a full spec for their products, including the presence (or lack of) camera. There is a market for those that don't want cameras, so devices exist and will continue to exist.
Instead of an iPhone, I have an iPod Touch, which costs half as much, has no monthly fee, and has all the same features except the cellular service, an external mic and speaker, and the camera. Then I have a phone that can do text and voice but, again, lacks a camera. My laptop has one, but I'm not taking that into movies all the time. If I was, I'd have ordered one without it and waited for it, just like you did with your Dell.
Alex the parrot's sudden death was actually a pretty sad story. Besides his dancing, he had one of the largest vocabularies ever known to a non-human - not just mimicry, but a real understanding of the meaning behind his words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
SydShamino's rule for superhero movie scripts:
Increase the villain count by one for each sequel. Increase the sidekick/ally count by one every other sequel. When either count grows unmanageable, reboot!
1. Show that such endeavors could not be done through private enterprise alone.
No private enterprise funds research that won't pay off for 20 years. Not anymore. And yet past money spent towards such research did yield profitable and usable results.
2. More importantly, show that the ends justify the means - that the various violations of individual rights that are inherent in government interventions into the economy are justified by your good intentions.
There's no such violation of individual rights. I willingly ceded my rights to avoid income tax and spending on the general welfare when, as I turned 18, I failed to renounce my U.S. citizenship and seek asylum in another country.
So allow me to turn the question around on you:
Why are you not complaining now that the current administration is putting us further and faster in debt than the last administration?
I recognize that our current economic situation requires actions against my - and Obama's - long term goals. Sometimes spending money is necessary, even when the overall goal is to reduce spending. And Obama has pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. That's further in debt, yeah, but it's certainly not faster in debt as you claim.
Or to put it another way:
Which tea party were you at?
Personally I think my taxes are reasonable given the benefits I receive from my government. If anything, they could probably be raised a bit so the government wasn't needing to borrow to support me.
Just maybe, if he managed to stop growing the federal budget, but the GDP continued to grow, then this directive would encourage the government to shift resources from other items to basic R&D?
My guess is that basing it on GDP is based on ... research, which indicated that investment based on a percent of GDP yielded the best results. Likely that research didn't base anything on federal spending (assuming the research was done in U.S. at all), and Obama doesn't like to read research and then casually change it to something more convenient.
Clinton, though, was helped by the dot-com boom, which was entirely NOT his doing (it's one of those things that just evolved, IMO, and Clinton was in office at the right time)
Yeah, it was really more his vice-president's doing, back in the 1980s.
Again, if it really matters you don't rely on those services. You have your own backup systems.
http://perens.com/blog/2009/04/22/108/
Perhaps you missed this story:
http://perens.com/blog/2009/04/22/108/
A lifetime is generally unfair to a lot of authors - if the old dude wrote his greatest work only days, months, or two or three years before croaking, he and his estate make very little.
You don't seem to understand why we have copyright law. The purpose of copyright isn't to enrich the creator and his heirs, it's to encourage the creator to create more. If he dies, that's over. If the heirs want to get rich on creations, let them write their own shit. And don't bother with the "pass on the family business" thing, because if a plumber wants to pass his business on to his son, he better teach him plumbing.
And if an old dude keeps writing because he knows it will help his younger wife and children once he's gone, he's been suitably encouraged.
I wouldn't tie life to it at all. Just make it 50 years and be done. Or make it 15, $1 renewal for another 35.
The grocery list I jotted down this afternoon is subject to copyright.
While I agree with your sentiments, lists of items are not covered by copyright. Unless you like to add colorful commentary to your grocery lists, they are like lists of ingredients in a recipe and in the public domain.
yes, you looked at the car, and decided that "all the car you get" wasn't $100,000 worth - meaning that it didn't suitably substitute for the house and other expenses that you'd rather use the money on.
On the other hand, plenty of people look at a $100,000 BMW and think "you know, I will spend a lot of time in my car. being in my car is effectively half work and half hobby. and overall the value I get from that car is worth the cost."
BTW, I just realized that our UIDs are just 50 apart. Practically neighbors!
Apparently some time in 1999(?) we both decided to stop lurking and post something... =p
I'm talking about something different. Assuming you've compromised a user account, but did not have root, you could write CDs or floppy disks on that computer (which the user can do). Then on reboot you can use this method to become root.
The overall process would be a long, convoluted privilege escalation.
But there are already plenty of drugs that make you more creative but significantly less "smart". Why have people who can do both when you can hire one ritalin junkie and one tripper and have two excellent employees for specific roles?
Yup, as long as you keep it on your lap while you type, the heat will sterilize the virus.
Actually, it needs local access by necessity, unless you can think of a way to boot by removable media on someone else's computer remotely.
Is there a way to turn this into a privilege escalation exploit? Assuming you had gained local privileges, could you then write this file to any CD burnt by the computer, or any floppy disk inserted (heh)? Then if the machine happened to boot with that in the drive, and the drive order happened to prioritize removable media first, you could gain root access.
I'm sure there are still easier methods to get root access.
Machine has only an ethernet port and a power port, no other ports exposed. Internally, machine has been potted with a material that chemically bonds to both IC plastic and soldermask, so that removing the material would physically damage both the PCB and components.
Internal battery with >20 yr life monitors integrity of case panels in multiple redundant points, and arcs and melts flash if any disturbance is noted.
So yeah, you're right. Given sufficient time and resources such a machine would be broken in a way that preserved the internal data. But "sufficient time" could be a very, very long time. It would likely be more efficient to power it up and try to hack the software through the exposed ethernet port. And that's no different whether the attacker had physical access or not.
And as soon as EEStor can make one of those ultracapacitors they've patented, we'll implement your solution. .. .. ..
still waiting.
Because all of us drive a tractor-trailer every day, we shouldn't bother to solve the gasoline problem until the solution also works for heavy-duty diesel trucks. Clearly!
Think of your standard stereo unit. Nobody plugs things directly into the speakers. They plug it into the central box, and that central box has a selector mechanism that allows you to choose which audio signal gets to the speakers.
No offense, but the "standard stereo unit" is about 3 inches long, two inches wide, a quarter inch thick, and boots with a fruit-shaped logo on the screen. Many, many people, myself included, find a "home electronics system" as you describe to be very much a product of the 1990s - and very much out of date.
I'm much happier to have as few boxes as possible, and just plug them directly into the TV.
Oh, is that all? I can watch a live event with just a tv and cable plugged into its back.
And how do you do that when the live event isn't being carried on that cable, because you don't pay for service or your provider simply doesn't carry the feed?
So the wireless router, cables and receiver were all free?
For someone who already has a computer, a home wireless network, and a big modern television, but who wants to watch streaming video on a bigger screen, yes. Things I already own, when used in a new application, are free for that new application. I bought and paid for the items for a different application, and "got my money's worth" for that other purpose, so anything extra is, well, a free extra.
If we do neither, and see where the new coastlines are after the oceans rise, we could solve the world hunger problem without expending any effort at all.
rights of the creator of that work to have a say in how and when its reproduced that are being preserved.
You have it backwards. The creator loses his rights when he chooses to publish his work, instead of destroying all manuscripts and keeping it to himself. The moment the work is published it becomes part of humanity's cultural heritage, good or bad.
In reward for that choice, to share his work with the world, the creator is given the privilege of limited control over the distribution of his work, for a limited time. This is a reward for his choice to publish, not a right inherent to creations.
The only right a creator has, in my opinion, is that of attribution. Everything else is a privilege. While you don't claim it in your post, others that use your line of reasoning extend it to say that creators have a right to profit from their work, or have a right to recall their work and prevent further distribution of existing copies, or to have those rights extend indefinitely through generations. And those such "rights" detract from our cultural heritage, working to hurt the thing that creative rights encourage. And that leads to rebellion where even the privileges granted to creators are ignored by the public.