only problem with that is that power consumption becomes non-trivial with multiple boxen, esp if they're older tech. for starting up now and then it's not so bad, but if you wanna keep 4 machines running all the time it start to add up, whereas a single i5 with a bunch of ram would consume less power than one of the old P4(?) machines that might be lying around.
You know, I think the judge recruitment pool would be rather low if you didn't allow those that have either stood as plaintiffs or defendants as lawyers. Because if they're biased then so is the EFF lawyer too, right? Or is that just the lawyers on the side you don't like.
we're not talking about a lawyer being biased, we're talking about a judge being biased. Judes recusing themselves from cases where there is, or even could be, a conflict of interest is not unusual. Her having been a RIAA lawyer creates a worthy argument for recusal, but i could argue the other way as you have. Being a lobbyist, though? That's a lot more conflict-y than just a lawyer trying to properly represent their client.
It's exactly the same in theory and legal terms, sure, but in physical terms, that the book doesn't phone home to ask for permission every time you try to read it. I think that was the point -- whether or not you legally own 'rights' to the content, they'll have a much tougher time trying to stop you reading it, regardless of the changing whims/stability of the publisher.
Or: I don't have to go find a cracked version of the book in order to keep reading it after the publisher goes tits-up.
no saying that at all, saying you're a fool to try and proclaim that PS was lying about the height of the robot based on the height of foreground object in a low-angle shot. (sure we COULD calculate the height of the mecha based on that if you knew the angle and the distances to the mecha and the people from the camera and the height of the people, but we don't)
We can both look at those pictures all day, doesn't change the fact that they're still perspective shots and that PS is likely far-more well informed about the project than you or i
Actually, the last picture you linked to lends to the mecha being 18 ft... thanks for helping my case.
umm...the shot was taken from a lowered perspective to be able to get the mecha and the people in the frame while still being close enough to discern who they are
similarly, i'm pretty sure this picture isn't definitive proof that the statue of liberty is only 15 ft tall
if by explodes, you mean burns really fast (as opposed to detonate, like TNT) then what exactly do you think happens inside the cylinders of an gasoline engine? Gasoline in liquid form burns (quickly), gasoline in vapor form explodes (burns REALLY quickly) bigger & badder than hydrogen.
Flour will explode, too, if you have he right Flour/O2 mixture and an ignition source, but I'm still making chocolate cake when I get home.
there close to a billion people on the net that wouldnt tell what to do when faced with such a disastrous looking warning as ff 3 prints out when met with a self signed ca.
yes.. let's train those billion people to pay LESS attention to potentially valid security warnings so that you can save a few bucks on a cert
so you're saying that, for the average web user, we should have a smaller, easier to ignore, more innocuous warning? We should teach them to ignore warnings about sites being dodgy wrt identity/security?
Slashdot constantly talks down about the unwashed masses blindly clicking through warning messages and doing stupid things.... you're talking about ENCOURAGING this behavior. Why is that a good thing?
No: if you train your users to ignore "[this certificate isn't signed by a know authority]" warnings, then you makes them substantially MORE vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks and, indeed, increases their susceptibility to phishing across the board.
As a web admin you will of course also have to maintain the certificate store, but that may be very easy if you only have a handful of clients. And if you have a handful of clients you may install the root certificate in a controlled situation on the clients, so not even there you have a big problem with insecurity.
didn't you just defeat your own protest to this 'feature?' If you're going to install the cert/root on your clients, then they won't encounter this message, and there's no problem.
Where i DO see a problem is making it very very cheap and and easy for people to register believable certs for
cittibank.com
citibnak.com
citybank.com
citibanc.com
Cost of entry keeps attacks like these targeted, removing that would open things up immeasurably... or do you think the phishing problem is overblown and just a commercial stunt too?
a lawyer friend of mine used to get pulled over routinely when he was commuting a long way.. like, several times a month. He showed his court id and never got ticketed.
I used to do IT work for a judge who was appalled that a copy a few towns away had the balls to, "...give a judge a ticket," after he got one. Apparently this is unheard of, and I'm quite confident it never got any further than that.
and you apparently only read far enough into the summary to see the 10 month old article that was put there for reference. The rest of the summary talks about how things are getting even more restrictive, and even provides a handy link
Here's just one of the many relevant pieces from the article:
The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read, cutting off access to just about any independent site with the word "blog" in its web address.
it's not QUITE a modular pop-open product, but it's close to what you're asking for. the price point is admittedly a bit prohibitive for the low-end, but for the ease of use involved it's not insane.
I can imagine a world where every drive manufacturer comes out with their own module form factor, similar, but different enough to not be interoperable. hell, there are already a zillion types of raid drive "modules" for all the arrays out there already.
bit of a difference between product placement in a video game and indexing my private data in a pay-for storage service, no?
IIRC you can pay for (corp accounts) ad-free versions of gmail... it stands to reason that pay-for storage might be index-free.
again, i'm guessing. but personally i'm more likely to put up with indexing my data on a free account, but once i start paying for it, well there are plenty of services that don't do that and have competitive pricing, right? If not, let me know, i've got a bunch of rackspace and i won't index your data.
well, i was thinking more of the higher rates. Though i think in general there's a higher expectation of privacy when the service is being paid for than when it's free. When it's free, they need to be able to make their money somehow, so they do their indexy stuff on the data. When i'm paying for it, hands off.
ami saying they won't? no. i do think, however, it would be more 'evil' to do so on a non-free service.
so, 6g/year for $20? has anyone come up with Gdrive concatenation/striping yet? load up on the gmail accounts and have at it.
you think? that sounds more like the arena of a cheap/free service. at these rates, it had better be private. how to ensure that w/o encrypting your data first? that's a different story.
given an estimated total build cost of $1.60/watt, that's roughly equivalent to nuclear, but without all of the ongoing costs of large security forces, fuel cycles, decommissioning, and all of the nasty waste left over. let's not forget that uranium is getting more expensive and the spent fuel is piling up.
Now, i'm not anti-nuclear, in fact i think we should be building breeders as fast as wen can, but to discount wind, which is economically similar to nuclear in build cost per watt, is cheaper to maintain, and doesn't have a lot of the nasty side effects because of someone as subjective as "it's ugly".... seems silly to me>
how pretty are a bunch more nuclear reactors all over the place?
how much beautiful habitat will your kids miss out on because there's a power plant there?
how much land will be restricted from your babies eyes because of the countless acres around the waste storage facility that are cordoned off for national security?
wind turbines can be put right where power is needed if the location has a steady breeze, the're high enough off the ground that the land underneath is still usable for farming or.... whatever.
it's not nearly as ugly as it used to be, is it really worth discounting?
that $20bn could build an awful lot of wind turbines.
have you actually seen them in action? i guess it's a personal thing, but i find the one near me rather beautiful... it's brilliant white, has sleek lines and is basically free power.
ridges in populated areas are already littered with broadcast towers, what's wring with a few wind turbines (at a fraction of the height, mind you) up there to generate very cheap power?
I'm not talking about clear cutting forest land to put in wind farms, but why not off the coast, or on ridges, etc.. ?
Slashdot Mirror
only problem with that is that power consumption becomes non-trivial with multiple boxen, esp if they're older tech. for starting up now and then it's not so bad, but if you wanna keep 4 machines running all the time it start to add up, whereas a single i5 with a bunch of ram would consume less power than one of the old P4(?) machines that might be lying around.
You know, I think the judge recruitment pool would be rather low if you didn't allow those that have either stood as plaintiffs or defendants as lawyers. Because if they're biased then so is the EFF lawyer too, right? Or is that just the lawyers on the side you don't like.
we're not talking about a lawyer being biased, we're talking about a judge being biased. Judes recusing themselves from cases where there is, or even could be, a conflict of interest is not unusual. Her having been a RIAA lawyer creates a worthy argument for recusal, but i could argue the other way as you have. Being a lobbyist, though? That's a lot more conflict-y than just a lawyer trying to properly represent their client.
It's exactly the same in theory and legal terms, sure, but in physical terms, that the book doesn't phone home to ask for permission every time you try to read it. I think that was the point -- whether or not you legally own 'rights' to the content, they'll have a much tougher time trying to stop you reading it, regardless of the changing whims/stability of the publisher. Or: I don't have to go find a cracked version of the book in order to keep reading it after the publisher goes tits-up.
Let me help you with that post
Seriously, though informative, it was painful to read.
Can't! Can't get cable here and DTV signal is the su>0rZ
there.. fixed that for you
no saying that at all, saying you're a fool to try and proclaim that PS was lying about the height of the robot based on the height of foreground object in a low-angle shot. (sure we COULD calculate the height of the mecha based on that if you knew the angle and the distances to the mecha and the people from the camera and the height of the people, but we don't)
We can both look at those pictures all day, doesn't change the fact that they're still perspective shots and that PS is likely far-more well informed about the project than you or i
Actually, the last picture you linked to lends to the mecha being 18 ft... thanks for helping my case.
umm...the shot was taken from a lowered perspective to be able to get the mecha and the people in the frame while still being close enough to discern who they are
similarly, i'm pretty sure this picture isn't definitive proof that the statue of liberty is only 15 ft tall
O'Reilly flu ftw!
you CAN add new things, just not from amazon. One can add non-amazon content to the Kindle
you missed a detector in each of your examples.
if by explodes, you mean burns really fast (as opposed to detonate, like TNT) then what exactly do you think happens inside the cylinders of an gasoline engine? Gasoline in liquid form burns (quickly), gasoline in vapor form explodes (burns REALLY quickly) bigger & badder than hydrogen.
Flour will explode, too, if you have he right Flour/O2 mixture and an ignition source, but I'm still making chocolate cake when I get home.
there close to a billion people on the net that wouldnt tell what to do when faced with such a disastrous looking warning as ff 3 prints out when met with a self signed ca.
yes.. let's train those billion people to pay LESS attention to potentially valid security warnings so that you can save a few bucks on a cert
great plan... Do you Phish for a living?
so you're saying that, for the average web user, we should have a smaller, easier to ignore, more innocuous warning? We should teach them to ignore warnings about sites being dodgy wrt identity/security?
Slashdot constantly talks down about the unwashed masses blindly clicking through warning messages and doing stupid things.... you're talking about ENCOURAGING this behavior. Why is that a good thing?
No: if you train your users to ignore "[this certificate isn't signed by a know authority]" warnings, then you makes them substantially MORE vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks and, indeed, increases their susceptibility to phishing across the board.
As a web admin you will of course also have to maintain the certificate store, but that may be very easy if you only have a handful of clients. And if you have a handful of clients you may install the root certificate in a controlled situation on the clients, so not even there you have a big problem with insecurity.
didn't you just defeat your own protest to this 'feature?' If you're going to install the cert/root on your clients, then they won't encounter this message, and there's no problem.
Where i DO see a problem is making it very very cheap and and easy for people to register believable certs for
cittibank.com
citibnak.com
citybank.com
citibanc.com
Cost of entry keeps attacks like these targeted, removing that would open things up immeasurably... or do you think the phishing problem is overblown and just a commercial stunt too?
amen about "one law for them"
a lawyer friend of mine used to get pulled over routinely when he was commuting a long way.. like, several times a month. He showed his court id and never got ticketed.
I used to do IT work for a judge who was appalled that a copy a few towns away had the balls to, "...give a judge a ticket," after he got one. Apparently this is unheard of, and I'm quite confident it never got any further than that.
and you apparently only read far enough into the summary to see the 10 month old article that was put there for reference. The rest of the summary talks about how things are getting even more restrictive, and even provides a handy link
Here's just one of the many relevant pieces from the article:
The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read, cutting off access to just about any independent site with the word "blog" in its web address.
if the system is on and running but locked... think coffee/bathroom/smoke/etc break
While I haven't seen a Mac user claim that Macs can't be infected by viruses,
/. know better, however i hear less techie mac users 'in the wild' proclaim this all the time.
most mac users on
you mean Like this? or even closer?
it's not QUITE a modular pop-open product, but it's close to what you're asking for. the price point is admittedly a bit prohibitive for the low-end, but for the ease of use involved it's not insane.
I can imagine a world where every drive manufacturer comes out with their own module form factor, similar, but different enough to not be interoperable. hell, there are already a zillion types of raid drive "modules" for all the arrays out there already.
last time i checked, -n suppresses the newline.
bit of a difference between product placement in a video game and indexing my private data in a pay-for storage service, no?
IIRC you can pay for (corp accounts) ad-free versions of gmail... it stands to reason that pay-for storage might be index-free.
again, i'm guessing. but personally i'm more likely to put up with indexing my data on a free account, but once i start paying for it, well there are plenty of services that don't do that and have competitive pricing, right? If not, let me know, i've got a bunch of rackspace and i won't index your data.
well, i was thinking more of the higher rates. Though i think in general there's a higher expectation of privacy when the service is being paid for than when it's free. When it's free, they need to be able to make their money somehow, so they do their indexy stuff on the data. When i'm paying for it, hands off.
ami saying they won't? no. i do think, however, it would be more 'evil' to do so on a non-free service.
so, 6g/year for $20? has anyone come up with Gdrive concatenation/striping yet? load up on the gmail accounts and have at it.
you think? that sounds more like the arena of a cheap/free service. at these rates, it had better be private. how to ensure that w/o encrypting your data first? that's a different story.
for reference, i'm referring to the newer, more sleekly designed turbines than the older scaffold-looking eyesores (i'll agree with you there)
given an estimated total build cost of $1.60/watt, that's roughly equivalent to nuclear, but without all of the ongoing costs of large security forces, fuel cycles, decommissioning, and all of the nasty waste left over. let's not forget that uranium is getting more expensive and the spent fuel is piling up.
Now, i'm not anti-nuclear, in fact i think we should be building breeders as fast as wen can, but to discount wind, which is economically similar to nuclear in build cost per watt, is cheaper to maintain, and doesn't have a lot of the nasty side effects because of someone as subjective as "it's ugly".... seems silly to me>
how pretty are a bunch more nuclear reactors all over the place?
how much beautiful habitat will your kids miss out on because there's a power plant there?
how much land will be restricted from your babies eyes because of the countless acres around the waste storage facility that are cordoned off for national security?
wind turbines can be put right where power is needed if the location has a steady breeze, the're high enough off the ground that the land underneath is still usable for farming or.... whatever.
it's not nearly as ugly as it used to be, is it really worth discounting?
that $20bn could build an awful lot of wind turbines.
have you actually seen them in action? i guess it's a personal thing, but i find the one near me rather beautiful... it's brilliant white, has sleek lines and is basically free power.
ridges in populated areas are already littered with broadcast towers, what's wring with a few wind turbines (at a fraction of the height, mind you) up there to generate very cheap power?
I'm not talking about clear cutting forest land to put in wind farms, but why not off the coast, or on ridges, etc.. ?
what is it that makes them so horrible?