Anyone can use anyone else's computer, or anyone else's account. A large percentage of computers running Microsoft Windows are infected and being operated by someone other than the owner of the computer. The idea that someone is supposedly identified by an account name or an IP address has already been considered in cases involving the RIAA, with very negative results. It's a foolish idea that will only continue to bring disrespect to the courts.
Thank you for saying that. The Slashdot story is misleading, as often happens. The story says "... a full year before Marc Andreessen's Mosaic...". But there were huge discussions of Hypertext long before that. It was clear that Hypertext would be implemented anywhere it could be used. What those who wrote the first internet browsers did was implement an old idea for the internet.
"... courts should first require the plaintiff to try to notify the
anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena. That notification
could come in the form of a message posted to the online forum in question,
and the posters must be given sufficient time to respond."
The court does not understand what "anonymous" means in the context of
online posting. It means, at least in some cases, "You will never know who did
it."
Before courts rule or Congress makes new laws, the proposed new ideas
should be posted on Slashdot. There are plenty of teenagers who read Slashdot
who would be willing to show why the new ideas don't make sense. Most of the
new ideas are so ignorant that there's no need for the rest of us to even get
involved.
It seems to me that, unless you have very special needs, you should hire
someone else to do the work of providing web hosting. It's much cheaper to
have a dedicated team do the work for thousands of servers than have your own
team.
I've looked at A2 Hosting. I've never used them, and don't know anyone connected with
them, but they seem like they know what they are doing.
I wouldn't recommend my present web host.
Does anyone else have recommendations about web hosting?
Acrylic rapidly becomes yellowed when exposed to ultraviolet, and especially
under very high-intensity light, even if it has anti-yellowing chemicals
added. This article, Applications and Limits of Polycarbonate and Acrylic
Lenses, explains "... yellowing is a sign of degradation of the plastic
molecule. Heat and ultraviolet act to break the molecules. This surrenders the
intrinsic strength of the material as the molecular structure no longer
consists of long intertwined chains but fractured segments. This may be
reflected in reduced strength of parts with formed surfaces as these surfaces
tend to localize stresses."
The article, A Cheaper Solar Concentrator, referenced in the Slashdot
story says, "With a flat bottom and convex, mirrored top, the [Morgan
Solar] optic receives the incoming barrage of light at a concentration
of about 50 suns and amplifies it to nearly 1,000 suns before bending the
light through a 90-degree angle."
The article does not explain how there is a concentration of 50 times
before the light reaches the optics. The article is wrong in using the word
"amplifies". The correct word would be "concentrates".
To have a 1,000 times concentration, the area of the optics must be
1,000 times larger than the area of the solar cell. That delivers 1,000 times
the heat, also.
Morgan Solar's investors page says, "Morgan Solar was incorporated in
June 2007 and is currently well funded by a start-up investment from our angel
investor and Chairman, Eric Morgan." Apparently the company was funded by
the inventor or someone in his family. It says, "Our plans call for
securing our next round of investment funding by Q1 2009. If you are a venture
capital company or a potential partner-investor interested in exploring
investment opportunities with our company, please contact us."
Was a Slashdot editor paid to allow this story? Did Slashdot profit?
Was Technology Review paid to run the story? I think that articles about
companies that are soliciting investments should have a statement about
whether or not someone was paid.
Republicans cost FAR more. Do some research: U.S. government debt. During the administration of George W. Bush, 5 trillion dollars of debt was added to U.S. government debt.
Intel's chipset design and fabrication progress is AMAZING. Everything else about Intel is backward, in my experience: Web site, marketing, behavior toward employees, and so on.
The biggest issue for Intel is that most people already have computers that are fast enough for them.... Or, they don't have the money or desire to buy a computer.
The 32nm processors, I understand, will reduce the power needed even further, making it sensible for data centers to upgrade.
It's time that the Firefox CPU-hogging bug is fixed. (357 bugs!) The bug was less of a problem until version 3.0.4, but versions 3.0.5 and 3.0.6 are much worse.
"Who have been using computers for twenty years to my certain knowledge."
The statement "... using computers for twenty years..." may give an erroneous impression. They've been using extremely proprietary and poorly designed computer programs for that long. The programs are proprietary so that the makers can get as much money as possible, and that limits access.
Quote from the site to which you linked: "Appellate ECF Filer Registration -- The U.S. Courts of Appeals and Bankruptcy Appellate Panels are beginning to accept electronic case filings." [my emphasis]
"You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software..." Presumably they know the meaning of the words. Certainly they are allowing themselves the option of being far more abusive in the future.
Remember the Sony software scandal? Judging from that, there won't be any corrections to Octoshape's bad behavior until people start demanding that the CEOs of CNN, Adobe, and Octoshape be fired.
One of the worst issues about this abuse is that Adobe is using software that is meant for updating its own products to install 3rd part software of its own choosing.
"Obviously, the terms are ludicrous and nigh-unenforceable."
Also, there is another point. Slashdot editors change stories submitted to them seemingly at random, but retain the submitter's name.
The story as I wrote it mentions that Adobe is allowing Octoshape to use Adobe's Express Installer to install the software.
Basically, that means that if you allow rights to Adobe, you are also giving rights to anyone who pays Adobe. Adobe's updating software is very annoying, in my opinion, but this new situation takes the abusiveness to a much higher level. See the linked story, Watch a live video, share your PC with CNN, at WindowsSecrets.com.
CNN and Adobe executives put a lot of thought into that software. They sat around at a 3-hour lunch drinking, talking about their million-dollar salaries not being enough, making rude remarks to the waitress, and wondering "How can we sink our companies, fast?"
I think you missed the point, Lord Kronos. The issue is not what information is there. The issue is that agreeing to the EULA means that it is illegal to read your own firewall logs. Maybe they would never prosecute, but maybe they would install software to prove you are looking at your logs. If they prosecuted, maybe you would win, after five years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
The issue is that the EULA says you lose control over your network.
I found this quote on the Atmel web site: "... the SAM7X offers 80 Mbps AES encryption throughput, which is 20x faster than a software implementation." I didn't know AES in specialized processor hardware was that advanced.
However, the other questions remain:
1) Does a lost password cause a complete loss of hardware? The article referenced by Slashdot implies that it does?
2) Would you trust a hidden encryption system? The U.S. government has established that it can act in secret, and put executives in prison if they don't cooperate. How would you establish that there is no hidden system to decrypt the data?
3) The specifications are poorly written. It would be scary to partner with such a disorganized organization. TrueCrypt is proven, and works very well.
4) Is a hardware implementation really more secure than TrueCrypt? TrueCrypt could, for example, overwrite memory 20 times before exiting. A shutdown command could overwrite all of system memory.
I don't see how this standard can receive wide acceptance. It seems to be
designed only for very unusual requirements.
First, if the main CPU doesn't do the encryption, another CPU of equal
speed must be provided. Otherwise the encryption and decryption will be very
slow. That means double the power and heat dissipation requirement.
Second, read this from the ComputerWorld article: "When a USB drive
is unplugged, or when a laptop is powered down, or when an administrator pulls
a drive from a server, it can't be brought back up and read without first
giving a cryptographically-strong password. If you don't have that, it's a
brick. You can't even sell it on eBay."
Does that mean a lost password causes a complete loss of hardware?
Would you trust a hidden encryption system? The U.S. government has
established that it can act in secret, and put executives in prison if they
don't cooperate. How would you establish that there is no hidden system to
decrypt the data?
Third, read the specifications. They are poorly written.
"... the key is never visible to the CPU at any time..."
If the CPU is used to decrypt, the key must be available to the CPU.
Anything that happens in the CPU must use the registers of the CPU.
It can be arranged that the password is never seen by the main
CPU, but that requires another CPU, which may also have vulnerability.
At present, it looks as though TrueCrypt is very attractive. It's open source, a
necessary quality for encryption methods. Hardware-assisted encryption would
not be open source. TrueCrypt can and does use methods of preventing boot-time
attacks.
From the TrueCrypt documentation: "Note that TrueCrypt can encrypt an
existing unencrypted system partition/drive in-place while the operating
system is running (while the system is being encrypted, you can use your
computer as usual without any restrictions)."
That means that TrueCrypt system partition encryption is available to
existing systems, a huge advantage, since any organization has existing
systems.
Slashdot Mirror
You said, "There *ARE* viable alternatives [to Trados]..."
Off topic, but what are the alternatives?
Anyone can use anyone else's computer, or anyone else's account. A large percentage of computers running Microsoft Windows are infected and being operated by someone other than the owner of the computer. The idea that someone is supposedly identified by an account name or an IP address has already been considered in cases involving the RIAA, with very negative results. It's a foolish idea that will only continue to bring disrespect to the courts.
Thank you for saying that. The Slashdot story is misleading, as often happens. The story says "... a full year before Marc Andreessen's Mosaic...". But there were huge discussions of Hypertext long before that. It was clear that Hypertext would be implemented anywhere it could be used. What those who wrote the first internet browsers did was implement an old idea for the internet.
Flashterm makes me laugh.
"... courts should first require the plaintiff to try to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena. That notification could come in the form of a message posted to the online forum in question, and the posters must be given sufficient time to respond."
The court does not understand what "anonymous" means in the context of online posting. It means, at least in some cases, "You will never know who did it."
Before courts rule or Congress makes new laws, the proposed new ideas should be posted on Slashdot. There are plenty of teenagers who read Slashdot who would be willing to show why the new ideas don't make sense. Most of the new ideas are so ignorant that there's no need for the rest of us to even get involved.
It seems to me that, unless you have very special needs, you should hire someone else to do the work of providing web hosting. It's much cheaper to have a dedicated team do the work for thousands of servers than have your own team.
I've looked at A2 Hosting. I've never used them, and don't know anyone connected with them, but they seem like they know what they are doing.
I wouldn't recommend my present web host.
Does anyone else have recommendations about web hosting?
Excellent.
Acrylic rapidly becomes yellowed when exposed to ultraviolet, and especially under very high-intensity light, even if it has anti-yellowing chemicals added. This article, Applications and Limits of Polycarbonate and Acrylic Lenses, explains "... yellowing is a sign of degradation of the plastic molecule. Heat and ultraviolet act to break the molecules. This surrenders the intrinsic strength of the material as the molecular structure no longer consists of long intertwined chains but fractured segments. This may be reflected in reduced strength of parts with formed surfaces as these surfaces tend to localize stresses."
The article, A Cheaper Solar Concentrator, referenced in the Slashdot story says, "With a flat bottom and convex, mirrored top, the [Morgan Solar] optic receives the incoming barrage of light at a concentration of about 50 suns and amplifies it to nearly 1,000 suns before bending the light through a 90-degree angle."
The article does not explain how there is a concentration of 50 times before the light reaches the optics. The article is wrong in using the word "amplifies". The correct word would be "concentrates".
To have a 1,000 times concentration, the area of the optics must be 1,000 times larger than the area of the solar cell. That delivers 1,000 times the heat, also.
Morgan Solar's investors page says, "Morgan Solar was incorporated in June 2007 and is currently well funded by a start-up investment from our angel investor and Chairman, Eric Morgan." Apparently the company was funded by the inventor or someone in his family. It says, "Our plans call for securing our next round of investment funding by Q1 2009. If you are a venture capital company or a potential partner-investor interested in exploring investment opportunities with our company, please contact us."
Was a Slashdot editor paid to allow this story? Did Slashdot profit? Was Technology Review paid to run the story? I think that articles about companies that are soliciting investments should have a statement about whether or not someone was paid.
Republicans cost FAR more. Do some research: U.S. government debt. During the administration of George W. Bush, 5 trillion dollars of debt was added to U.S. government debt.
Someone at Intel told me that 22nm chips will come after the 32nm design rules, code named Haswell.
See this Register article: Intel adds 22nm octo-core 'Haswell' to CPU design roadmap.
Intel's chipset design and fabrication progress is AMAZING. Everything else about Intel is backward, in my experience: Web site, marketing, behavior toward employees, and so on.
The biggest issue for Intel is that most people already have computers that are fast enough for them.... Or, they don't have the money or desire to buy a computer.
The 32nm processors, I understand, will reduce the power needed even further, making it sensible for data centers to upgrade.
Correction, should be:
It's also worth mentioning the 357 CPU-hogging bugs as an example of avoiding working on things that matter.
It's also worth mentioning the 357 CPU-hogging bugs as an example of working on things that don't matter.
If you can't visit Bugzilla from Slashdot, put this URL into another tab: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=CPU
It's time that the Firefox CPU-hogging bug is fixed. (357 bugs!) The bug was less of a problem until version 3.0.4, but versions 3.0.5 and 3.0.6 are much worse.
If you can't visit Bugzilla from Slashdot, put this URL into another tab: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=CPU
They use court stenographers...
"Who have been using computers for twenty years to my certain knowledge."
The statement "... using computers for twenty years..." may give an erroneous impression. They've been using extremely proprietary and poorly designed computer programs for that long. The programs are proprietary so that the makers can get as much money as possible, and that limits access.
Quote from the site to which you linked: "Appellate ECF Filer Registration -- The U.S. Courts of Appeals and Bankruptcy Appellate Panels are beginning to accept electronic case filings." [my emphasis]
"install 3rd part software" should be "install 3rd party software"
You said, "Why did they add this clause to the EULA?"
I don't know. The language of the EULA is too broad:
"You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software..." Presumably they know the meaning of the words. Certainly they are allowing themselves the option of being far more abusive in the future.
Remember the Sony software scandal? Judging from that, there won't be any corrections to Octoshape's bad behavior until people start demanding that the CEOs of CNN, Adobe, and Octoshape be fired.
One of the worst issues about this abuse is that Adobe is using software that is meant for updating its own products to install 3rd part software of its own choosing.
"Obviously, the terms are ludicrous and nigh-unenforceable."
Also, there is another point. Slashdot editors change stories submitted to them seemingly at random, but retain the submitter's name.
The story as I wrote it mentions that Adobe is allowing Octoshape to use Adobe's Express Installer to install the software.
Basically, that means that if you allow rights to Adobe, you are also giving rights to anyone who pays Adobe. Adobe's updating software is very annoying, in my opinion, but this new situation takes the abusiveness to a much higher level. See the linked story, Watch a live video, share your PC with CNN, at WindowsSecrets.com.
CNN and Adobe executives put a lot of thought into that software. They sat around at a 3-hour lunch drinking, talking about their million-dollar salaries not being enough, making rude remarks to the waitress, and wondering "How can we sink our companies, fast?"
The article says that CNN offers other ways to watch the video, but that is not always obvious.
Funny.
I think you missed the point, Lord Kronos. The issue is not what information is there. The issue is that agreeing to the EULA means that it is illegal to read your own firewall logs. Maybe they would never prosecute, but maybe they would install software to prove you are looking at your logs. If they prosecuted, maybe you would win, after five years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
The issue is that the EULA says you lose control over your network.
MOD PARENT UP. Funny.
I found this quote on the Atmel web site: "... the SAM7X offers 80 Mbps AES encryption throughput, which is 20x faster than a software implementation." I didn't know AES in specialized processor hardware was that advanced.
However, the other questions remain:
1) Does a lost password cause a complete loss of hardware? The article referenced by Slashdot implies that it does?
2) Would you trust a hidden encryption system? The U.S. government has established that it can act in secret, and put executives in prison if they don't cooperate. How would you establish that there is no hidden system to decrypt the data?
3) The specifications are poorly written. It would be scary to partner with such a disorganized organization. TrueCrypt is proven, and works very well.
4) Is a hardware implementation really more secure than TrueCrypt? TrueCrypt could, for example, overwrite memory 20 times before exiting. A shutdown command could overwrite all of system memory.
I don't see how this standard can receive wide acceptance. It seems to be designed only for very unusual requirements.
First, if the main CPU doesn't do the encryption, another CPU of equal speed must be provided. Otherwise the encryption and decryption will be very slow. That means double the power and heat dissipation requirement.
Second, read this from the ComputerWorld article: "When a USB drive is unplugged, or when a laptop is powered down, or when an administrator pulls a drive from a server, it can't be brought back up and read without first giving a cryptographically-strong password. If you don't have that, it's a brick. You can't even sell it on eBay."
Does that mean a lost password causes a complete loss of hardware?
TrueCrypt is FAST. It is FREE. It is OPEN SOURCE.
Would you trust a hidden encryption system? The U.S. government has established that it can act in secret, and put executives in prison if they don't cooperate. How would you establish that there is no hidden system to decrypt the data?
Third, read the specifications. They are poorly written.
"... the key is never visible to the CPU at any time..."
If the CPU is used to decrypt, the key must be available to the CPU. Anything that happens in the CPU must use the registers of the CPU.
It can be arranged that the password is never seen by the main CPU, but that requires another CPU, which may also have vulnerability.
At present, it looks as though TrueCrypt is very attractive. It's open source, a necessary quality for encryption methods. Hardware-assisted encryption would not be open source. TrueCrypt can and does use methods of preventing boot-time attacks.
From the TrueCrypt documentation: "Note that TrueCrypt can encrypt an existing unencrypted system partition/drive in-place while the operating system is running (while the system is being encrypted, you can use your computer as usual without any restrictions)."
That means that TrueCrypt system partition encryption is available to existing systems, a huge advantage, since any organization has existing systems.