Apparently the government, just like private industry, doesn't pay attention to security until something bad happens to it.
What do you expect? the way Congress works, nobody gets credit for *preventing* a problem. They only get attention for a fast response after everything all goes to hell.
Well, no kidding. My point (which was apparently non-obvious, for pedants such as yourself) is that cultural differences between our two countries would be a near-impenetrable barrier for adoption of such a technology in North America.
BTW... I hear Ric Romero needs an editorial assistant. You might could help him out.
Clinton only sent two emails during his entire 8 years in office.
"His administration generated about 40 million messages - mostly memos and notes among aides and cabinet members. Of the two Mr Clinton sent, one was a test to see if the president could push an e-mail button. The other was addressed to astronaut John Glenn"
That shouldn't be hard to archive.
(on a slightly related note, I wonder what percentage of those are/were spam, and if they have to archive all those spam messages for online poker and hot wet bitches?)
Yeah! Ha ha! Apple should have created their own handhelds, including an OS, from scratch to avoid using Microsoft technology! They could have had this all implemented by 2015 if they were lucky. Where does this stupid "Apple vs. Microsoft" thing come from? Microsoft makes software for Apple computers. Apple hardware runs on Windows computers. There's no "war" there.
I'm not implying a competition. My point is that Apple's "retail revolution" is a thin facade of marketing based on real products from other companies. It's much like that "revolutionary technology" AJAX, which is basically marketing hype (to sell conferences and seminars) around a particular use for Javascript and XML.
WOW! Re-vo-lu-tion! You mean like the ones waiters in Europe have been using for *ages*? It's actually kind of nice because they do not take your credit card back to the register. They swipe it at your table and hand it back to you.
What's even funnier is that those "wireless gizmos for scanning credit cards" are powered by a version of Windows CE. So, apparently, Apple's retail "revolution" is brought to you by the Microsoft corporation.
The big culprits aren't the devices themselves, but the tiny 'ear bud' style headphones that the music players use.
Is it the design of the headphones, or the design of the headphones combined with people listening to their music at higher levels than usual?
" In a study published last year in the journal Ear and Hearing, researchers at Harvard Medical School looked at a variety of headphones and found that, on average, the smaller they were, the higher their output levels at any given volume-control setting. And other studies have shown that because the tiny phones inserted into the ears are not as efficient at blocking outside sounds as the cushioned headsets, users tend to crank up the volume to compensate."
So the problem isn't a technological one, but a psychological one. I'm guessing the in-ear phones like the ones made by Etymotic wouldn't be subject to this phenomenon.
Then it could be that Dell feels the Blu-Ray format is more commercially viable, as it's more likely to be accepted by content producers as 'secure':
"The only difference being that Blu Ray is adding another two supplementary security elements: ROM Mark and BD+. ROM Mark is a sort of stamp, invisible to the consumer, which can be embedded using special equipment available only to licensed Blu-Ray disc producers. Obviously, these discs will only be compatible with Blu-Ray equipments." (link)
With regards to the posted article, I don't see why Dell would be basing decisions on anything other than what's best for Dell (i.e., instead of some non-expressed dislike for Microsoft).
Today we have news that Dell is not going to support HD-DVD, despite reported incentives that recently induced HP to do so. So, what are some theories as to why Dell has lately been less of a friend to Microsoft,
I don't know about a cohesive theory to tie all of it together, but for the HD-DVD thing, I would suspect Dell's not supporting it because it keeps getting delayed, because they can't seem to get their shit together finalizing the AACS "content protection".
Reuters reports that South Korean prosecutors have started a program to start sending indictment notices via SMS... One potential hitch in the program: You have to apply to the service in order to receive your indictment electronically."
Ok... so you have to *sign up* to be indicted electronically? wtf? We can't even get people to sign up for FasTrak toll payment, much less any form of electronic justice.
Bleex 1 consists of a pair of hydraulically powered leg braces, more than 40 electronic sensors, a control computer, and an internal-combustion engine providing power from an attached backpack.
So the CGD disk is an encrypted pseudo disk driver. It sits on top of another partition and acts as a new virtual disk to the rest of the operating system. But what of those of us that have to use windows, or Mac OS X? This seems like it's only compatible with *nix OSes.
Carnegie Mellon University is experimenting with a robot receptionist with a personality. The article on NPR tells about the receptionist, named Tank. Tank lives in a computer, with a Frankenstein-like face showing on the monitor.
It has been, as Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, noted, "a 75-year war." It is typical in reporting on this subject to bounce from one expert to another, each one shaking his or her head about how the other one just doesn't get it.
Exactly. No wonder the christian-creationist assholes are able to drive in their "intelligent design" wedge in the high-school curriculum. Science is all about intelligent discourse, but the masses need a coherent explanation in the mean.
"The New York Times is running an interesting story on Einstein's strangest theory. The theory was brought to light this past fall when 'scientists announced that they had put a half dozen beryllium atoms into a "cat state."
This fall scientists announced that they had put a half-dozen beryllium atoms into a "cat state."
No, they were not sprawled along a sunny windowsill. To a physicist, a "cat state" is the condition of being in two diametrically opposed conditions at once, such as black and white, up and down, or dead and alive.
These atoms were each spinning clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time. Moreover, like miniature Rockettes, they were all doing whatever it was they were doing together, in perfect synchrony. Should one of them realize, like the cartoon character who runs off a cliff and doesn't fall until he looks down, that it is in a metaphysically untenable situation and decide to spin only one way, the rest would instantly fall in line, whether they were across a test tube or across the galaxy.
The idea that measuring the properties of one particle could instantaneously change the properties of another one (or a whole bunch) far away is strange to say the least -- almost as strange as the notion of particles spinning in two directions at once. The team that pulled off the beryllium feat, led by Dietrich Leibfried at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in Boulder, Colo., hailed it as another step toward computers that would use quan-
tum magic to perform calculations.
But it also served as another demonstration of how weird the world really is according to the rules known as quantum mechanics.
The joke is on Albert Einstein, who, back in 1935, dreamed up this trick of synchronized atoms -- "spooky action at a distance," as he called it -- as an example of the absurdity of quantum mechanics.
"No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this," he, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen wrote in a paper in 1935.
Today, that paper, written when Einstein was a relatively ancient 56 years old, is the most cited of Einstein's papers. But far from demolishing quantum theory, that paper wound up as the cornerstone for the new field of quantum information.
Nary a week goes by that does not bring news of another feat of quantum trickery once only dreamed of in thought experiments: particles (or at least all their properties) being teleported across the room in a microscopic version of "Star Trek" beaming; electrical "cat" currents that circle a loop in opposite directions at the same time; more and more particles farther and farther apart bound together in Einstein's spooky embrace now known as "entanglement." At the University of California, Santa Barbara, researchers are planning an experiment in which a small mirror will be in two places at once.
Niels Bohr, the Danish philosopher king of quantum theory, dismissed any attempts to lift the quantum veil as meaningless, saying that science is about the results of experiments, not ultimate reality.
But now that quantum weirdness is not confined to thought experiments, physicists have begun arguing again about what this weirdness means, whether the theory needs changing, and whether in fact there is any problem.
This fall, two Nobel laureates, Anthony Leggett of the University of Illinois and Norman Ramsay of Harvard University, argued in front of several hundred scientists at a conference in Berkeley about whether, in effect, physicists are justified trying to change quantum theory, the most successful theory in the history of science. Leggett said yes; Ramsay said no.
It has been, as Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, noted, "a 75-year war." It is typical in reporting on this subject to bounce from one expert to another, each one shaking his or her head about how the other one just doesn't get it.
"It's a kind of funny situation," N. David Mermin of Cornell University, who has called Einstein's spooky action "the closest thing we have to magic," said, referring to the recent results. "These are extremely difficult experiments that
In fact, for a normal load, this power supply won't draw any more wall current than a 300 watt supply - but it will be able to draw a lot more if it needs to, without failing
Readings from a device such as a kill-a-watt Kill-a-watt vary, depending on computer load. I propose someone bites the bullet and tests the efficiency of this thing at idle, and at load, so we can see how much power it's wasting.
That was pretty dangerous. All you needed was to purchase 1,210 of these PC Power and Cooling 1KW units, and stack 'em on your DeLorean.
Yeah, well, it's not like they're going to come chasing after me with their AK-47s, immediately after I perform my proof-of-concept experiment where I send my dog 12 miunutes into the future, forcing a dramatic, hair-raising flight by my friend who's videotaping the whole thing for posterity, ending in an accidental trip back in time which results in a near-catastrophic ripple in the space-time continuum.
Slashdot Mirror
"Gimp Splash 10". That sounds like a movie you don't want your girlfriend finding under your couch.
Apparently the government, just like private industry, doesn't pay attention to security until something bad happens to it. What do you expect? the way Congress works, nobody gets credit for *preventing* a problem. They only get attention for a fast response after everything all goes to hell.
This is seriously old news. Like, from September old. What next, are we going to get an editorial about this new phenomenon called "blogging"?
South Koreans != Americans.
Well, no kidding. My point (which was apparently non-obvious, for pedants such as yourself) is that cultural differences between our two countries would be a near-impenetrable barrier for adoption of such a technology in North America.
BTW... I hear Ric Romero needs an editorial assistant. You might could help him out.
Clinton only sent two emails during his entire 8 years in office.
"His administration generated about 40 million messages - mostly memos and notes among aides and cabinet members. Of the two Mr Clinton sent, one was a test to see if the president could push an e-mail button. The other was addressed to astronaut John Glenn"
That shouldn't be hard to archive.
(on a slightly related note, I wonder what percentage of those are/were spam, and if they have to archive all those spam messages for online poker and hot wet bitches?)
Yeah! Ha ha! Apple should have created their own handhelds, including an OS, from scratch to avoid using Microsoft technology! They could have had this all implemented by 2015 if they were lucky. Where does this stupid "Apple vs. Microsoft" thing come from? Microsoft makes software for Apple computers. Apple hardware runs on Windows computers. There's no "war" there.
I'm not implying a competition. My point is that Apple's "retail revolution" is a thin facade of marketing based on real products from other companies. It's much like that "revolutionary technology" AJAX, which is basically marketing hype (to sell conferences and seminars) around a particular use for Javascript and XML.
WOW! Re-vo-lu-tion! You mean like the ones waiters in Europe have been using for *ages*? It's actually kind of nice because they do not take your credit card back to the register. They swipe it at your table and hand it back to you.
What's even funnier is that those "wireless gizmos for scanning credit cards" are powered by a version of Windows CE. So, apparently, Apple's retail "revolution" is brought to you by the Microsoft corporation.
Apple-Intel-Dells (I know the OS is Mac, but I couldn't resist) Apple is on the blu-ray foundation and is switching to Intel chipsets,
Or, as I like to call 'em, "Apple-Intel-Desktop-Systems". A.I.D.S.
The big culprits aren't the devices themselves, but the tiny 'ear bud' style headphones that the music players use.
Is it the design of the headphones, or the design of the headphones combined with people listening to their music at higher levels than usual?
" In a study published last year in the journal Ear and Hearing, researchers at Harvard Medical School looked at a variety of headphones and found that, on average, the smaller they were, the higher their output levels at any given volume-control setting. And other studies have shown that because the tiny phones inserted into the ears are not as efficient at blocking outside sounds as the cushioned headsets, users tend to crank up the volume to compensate."
So the problem isn't a technological one, but a psychological one. I'm guessing the in-ear phones like the ones made by Etymotic wouldn't be subject to this phenomenon.
Then it could be that Dell feels the Blu-Ray format is more commercially viable, as it's more likely to be accepted by content producers as 'secure':
"The only difference being that Blu Ray is adding another two supplementary security elements: ROM Mark and BD+. ROM Mark is a sort of stamp, invisible to the consumer, which can be embedded using special equipment available only to licensed Blu-Ray disc producers. Obviously, these discs will only be compatible with Blu-Ray equipments." (link)
With regards to the posted article, I don't see why Dell would be basing decisions on anything other than what's best for Dell (i.e., instead of some non-expressed dislike for Microsoft).
Today we have news that Dell is not going to support HD-DVD, despite reported incentives that recently induced HP to do so. So, what are some theories as to why Dell has lately been less of a friend to Microsoft,
I don't know about a cohesive theory to tie all of it together, but for the HD-DVD thing, I would suspect Dell's not supporting it because it keeps getting delayed, because they can't seem to get their shit together finalizing the AACS "content protection".
Reuters reports that South Korean prosecutors have started a program to start sending indictment notices via SMS ... One potential hitch in the program: You have to apply to the service in order to receive your indictment electronically."
Ok... so you have to *sign up* to be indicted electronically? wtf? We can't even get people to sign up for FasTrak toll payment, much less any form of electronic justice.
Sure! Just drive at 100mph head on into a blue wall!
Hey, not an issue. With that 1 Kilowatt power supply installed, we all know what happens when you hit 88.
Popular science did a cool article where they had pro racers race in Forza motorsport, and then on the actual track.
The consensus was that it's easier to take corners at speed in the game because there's a lower penalty for crash.
Bleex 1 consists of a pair of hydraulically powered leg braces, more than 40 electronic sensors, a control computer, and an internal-combustion engine providing power from an attached backpack.
that's great, but can it find Sarah Connor?
Mac OS X is a *nix OS.
No, Mac OS X is a BSD. There's a difference.
So the CGD disk is an encrypted pseudo disk driver. It sits on top of another partition and acts as a new virtual disk to the rest of the operating system. But what of those of us that have to use windows, or Mac OS X? This seems like it's only compatible with *nix OSes.
Carnegie Mellon University is experimenting with a robot receptionist with a personality. The article on NPR tells about the receptionist, named Tank. Tank lives in a computer, with a Frankenstein-like face showing on the monitor.
the real question is, can it find Sarah Connor?
Its nearly 6am, I have the flu and I cant sleep
No worries, man. That's nothing compared to 18 beers.
Or if the RIAA/MPAA have their way: P2P traffic. Be careful what you wish for.
Is it just me, or is "trusted computing" the greatest scam (read:trojan horse) ever?
It has been, as Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, noted, "a 75-year war." It is typical in reporting on this subject to bounce from one expert to another, each one shaking his or her head about how the other one just doesn't get it.
Exactly. No wonder the christian-creationist assholes are able to drive in their "intelligent design" wedge in the high-school curriculum. Science is all about intelligent discourse, but the masses need a coherent explanation in the mean.
"The New York Times is running an interesting story on Einstein's strangest theory. The theory was brought to light this past fall when 'scientists announced that they had put a half dozen beryllium atoms into a "cat state."
Wouldn't that be Schroedinger's strangest theory?
Einstein said there would be days like this.
This fall scientists announced that they had put a half-dozen beryllium atoms into a "cat state."
No, they were not sprawled along a sunny windowsill. To a physicist, a "cat state" is the condition of being in two diametrically opposed conditions at once, such as black and white, up and down, or dead and alive.
These atoms were each spinning clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time. Moreover, like miniature Rockettes, they were all doing whatever it was they were doing together, in perfect synchrony. Should one of them realize, like the cartoon character who runs off a cliff and doesn't fall until he looks down, that it is in a metaphysically untenable situation and decide to spin only one way, the rest would instantly fall in line, whether they were across a test tube or across the galaxy.
The idea that measuring the properties of one particle could instantaneously change the properties of another one (or a whole bunch) far away is strange to say the least -- almost as strange as the notion of particles spinning in two directions at once. The team that pulled off the beryllium feat, led by Dietrich Leibfried at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in Boulder, Colo., hailed it as another step toward computers that would use quan- tum magic to perform calculations.
But it also served as another demonstration of how weird the world really is according to the rules known as quantum mechanics.
The joke is on Albert Einstein, who, back in 1935, dreamed up this trick of synchronized atoms -- "spooky action at a distance," as he called it -- as an example of the absurdity of quantum mechanics.
"No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this," he, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen wrote in a paper in 1935.
Today, that paper, written when Einstein was a relatively ancient 56 years old, is the most cited of Einstein's papers. But far from demolishing quantum theory, that paper wound up as the cornerstone for the new field of quantum information.
Nary a week goes by that does not bring news of another feat of quantum trickery once only dreamed of in thought experiments: particles (or at least all their properties) being teleported across the room in a microscopic version of "Star Trek" beaming; electrical "cat" currents that circle a loop in opposite directions at the same time; more and more particles farther and farther apart bound together in Einstein's spooky embrace now known as "entanglement." At the University of California, Santa Barbara, researchers are planning an experiment in which a small mirror will be in two places at once.
Niels Bohr, the Danish philosopher king of quantum theory, dismissed any attempts to lift the quantum veil as meaningless, saying that science is about the results of experiments, not ultimate reality.
But now that quantum weirdness is not confined to thought experiments, physicists have begun arguing again about what this weirdness means, whether the theory needs changing, and whether in fact there is any problem.
This fall, two Nobel laureates, Anthony Leggett of the University of Illinois and Norman Ramsay of Harvard University, argued in front of several hundred scientists at a conference in Berkeley about whether, in effect, physicists are justified trying to change quantum theory, the most successful theory in the history of science. Leggett said yes; Ramsay said no.
It has been, as Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, noted, "a 75-year war." It is typical in reporting on this subject to bounce from one expert to another, each one shaking his or her head about how the other one just doesn't get it.
"It's a kind of funny situation," N. David Mermin of Cornell University, who has called Einstein's spooky action "the closest thing we have to magic," said, referring to the recent results. "These are extremely difficult experiments that
In fact, for a normal load, this power supply won't draw any more wall current than a 300 watt supply - but it will be able to draw a lot more if it needs to, without failing
Readings from a device such as a kill-a-watt Kill-a-watt vary, depending on computer load. I propose someone bites the bullet and tests the efficiency of this thing at idle, and at load, so we can see how much power it's wasting.
That was pretty dangerous. All you needed was to purchase 1,210 of these PC Power and Cooling 1KW units, and stack 'em on your DeLorean.
Yeah, well, it's not like they're going to come chasing after me with their AK-47s, immediately after I perform my proof-of-concept experiment where I send my dog 12 miunutes into the future, forcing a dramatic, hair-raising flight by my friend who's videotaping the whole thing for posterity, ending in an accidental trip back in time which results in a near-catastrophic ripple in the space-time continuum.
I mean, really. come on. (rolleyes)