Yeah, so well-accepted, in fact, that it's standard on many good Wintel motherboards now, most all DV equipment, and most better-than-the-cheapest beige-box PCs from Dell, Sony, HP, etc. Or were you going to connect your brand-new digital camcorder to your USB2 port?
A few MBs support it. Big deal. Firewire is a high end feature that's useless to the average consumer, so it's absent on most mainstream systems. The market for Firewire is A/V, which is a small market and not prone to making it well accepted outside its niche. Apple put it on their machines, and it's never really grown outside its niche. If you'll remember the original point of my post was to counter the claim that Apple blessing a technology does nothing for its general acceptance.
Until FireWire made it obsolete on the consumer level, SCSI was the standard for connecting peripherals that needed more bandwidth or speed than parallel could give, which was basically every storage device there was (except floppies).
More crack smoking. SCSI was a poor standard for connecting.... mostly scanners. You could try to argue the "external hard drive", but that's a niche market just like A/V. The consumer PC market never adopted it because it was expensive, and you're still hard pressed to find a PC outside the server market that supports it onboard. The market that SCSI did serve was replaced by USB, not firewire.
You don't recommend any purchases for people who have laptops, PDAs, or cell fones, do you?
I have a laptop, cell phone, and PDA, and none of them support bluetooth. Maybe if Bluetooth were widely supported on all new cell-phones or PDAs it might make sense, but it isn't.
The Bluetooth market is being crunched on both sides. Wi-Fi is a better connection where I want a real network, and wireless USB is going to crunch it for simple data exchange between devices. The bandwidth is higher so you'll be able to do quick syncing to say an MP3 player, and you'll get the added benefit of wireless mice, keyboards, etc.
The only place Bluetooth might have an advantage is in devicedevice communication. The low power requirements hold an advantage when I have limited battery life on my cell phone and want to send someone a phone number.
Anyway, the point the original article was trying to make was Bluetooth is dead in the PC arena. Why have one low bandwidth, and one high bandwidth protocol (Bluetooth and wireless USB) when you can have one that does everything Bluetooth does?
Yup, just like Firewire is so well accepted, and SCSI has become a standard feature of all PCs.
Apple accepting something means nothing. USB didn't go anywhere until Windows 98 came out since Windows 95 had crappy USB support. If there's not a great need for something, it's much harder for it to be accepted. USB was quickly accepted once it became useable for this very reason. Wi-Fi the same reason.
While it's kinda cool to have a wireless mouse or keyboard, it's not really a great need. Bluetooth is relatively slow at 760 kb/sec, so it's not very practical for anything high bandwidth. Why would I recommend to Joe-User that they make sure their next computer has Bluetooth support?
Your comments frighten me more than the guy being arrested. You don't want to be required to produce ID, but if someone you don't like gets arrested for failing to produce ID, you side with the cop? Do only nice, polite people deserve rights? Is being stupid a crime?
See.. there's this idea that the law is their to protect people. Being a jerk, rude, and arguing might not win you any friends, but it shouldn't get you arrested.
Re:I dont think I would hack my car
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Car, one mistightened nut, and you're in traction. Wow, you sound like someone that's inherently frightened of their car. Do you really think a single miss-tightened nut could put you in traction? If that were true, there'd be a lot of mechanics guilty of manslaughter. (Read there's a _lot_ of monkey-wrench "mechanics" out there).
There's little danger of endangering your life unless you really screw up the wrong thing. (Like you mess up a tie rod which attatches your wheels to the steering mechanism). Cars aren't airplanes. If you do something wrong fixing them the car might leave you stranded, but you're not going to die.
For the most part the danger of working on your own car is breaking something, just like working on your computer.
What shocks me most is you got modded up so high. Geeks should be ashamed of themselves for being so techo-phobic about non-computer technology. It's just as cool, and probbably a lot more practical to know a bit about fixing your car. I'm not talking about replacing a transmission, but any idiot can do a brake job.
ALl good points, but the kicker is that this ethanol->hydrogen engine requires the catalyst be heated up to 700 degrees. The question is how much energy is required to sustain this reaction? You gain some energy from not having to distill the ethanol as much, but you lose some by having to maintain the catalyst temperature.
You're smoking crack. Saying someone is schizophrenic is an off-handed comment people often make about people that are unbalanced. Any idiot knows it's not a medical opinion. It's about as libelous as saying someone is nuts. I suppose you're now going to sue me for libel for accusing you of smoking crack?
At least from what I've read, yah. Now that particular idea has a lot of neato science-fiction cool factor to it. String theory in general has a lot of that.
The problem of course is that string theory yet to produce any testable predictions. I really like what Sheldon Glashow had to say about this. Essentially he said that if string theory doesn't produce any testable predictions it is philosophy, not science. You have to get more out of a scientific theory than you put into it. Theories have to have utility beyond some personal satisfaction of explanation. Explanations are cheap, but prediction is worth something.
So a little over 46 years after humankind first broke free from the gravity well by launching a basketball into orbit we're supposed to have mastered spaceflight? That's like complaining that the first boats we made weren't very safe.
We live in an age where (at least in the developed world) terrible epidemic diseases have been wiped from the planet. Smallpox has been eliminated entirely, polio is headed in that direction. Cars have become incredibly safe even in the last 30 years with the development of airbags, safety glass, 3 point seatbelts, etc. We can perform amazing operations and save people from cancer, heart disease, etc. Hell, we can even cure minor annoyances like going bald to some degree.
I guess the logical thought that some people have is that _everything_ should be safe, and easily fixable. Even bolting yourself to more than a million pounds of explosives, then later re-entering the earths atmosphere at 20,000 MPH should be safe as kittens.
Listen buddy, going into space is inherently dangerous. It's the most dangerous environment we've yet been too. Given that the failure rate is ONLY 2% is pretty amazing. Are there safer ways to do it? Maybe, the space plane idea might just work, but that only makes the first part of the equasion safer. Re-entering the earths atmosphere is just a difficult thing to do since you're relying on the atmoshere to slow you down. Try to put things into a little perspective. Good god, 27 people died building the Brooklynn Bridge alone!
If you think the X-Prize is going to be some magic bullet that makes going into space any _safer_, think again. The goal of the X-Prize is to make going into space _cheaper_. My guess is that it's also going to make it more dangerous, along with cheaper. That's fine.. as more people do it, and everything becomes more perfected the safety will go up.
Life is dangerous. If you want to complain about spending too much money on getting little benefit, fine. But this "safety to the astronauts" argument is just moronic. The astronauts aren't idiots, and know the dangers. Let them take those risks and stop second guessing them.
The point I think the original poster was trying to make was that you don't gain anything militarily by putting people into space. Robots, weapons, spy satelites, sure... but the US won't be putting people up for any secret military plans, there's just no point in doing that.
Typical journalist with a little bit of knowledge gone too far. (If you truly do work for PC Magazine).
Polymorphic/Metamorphic viruses have been around for 10 years at least, and the dumb journalists were just as scared then. I'm still waiting for the dire predictions to come true "when we start seeing more of these". As others have pointed out there's always part of the code that you can't mask, so there's always something to identify the virus with. I'm sure it takes a bit more work to identify the viruses, but the sky hasn't fallen yet.
You should know better if your bio is true, being a grad student of computer science.. but then again grad student quality has dipped pretty low in recent years in CSCI. There's also the journalist taint factor to consider. I'm guessing the magazines/newspapers/TV networks must put lead in the watercooler.
Don't worry, you'll still be able to talk to yourself anonymously. That's almost the same thing as posting to slashdot as AC, or sending out anonymous emails.
The truth is that people generally aren't going to read emails from people they don't know. Do you like getting phone calls from random, anonymous people? Would you listen to someone if they did call you up anonymously? Email is too personal a medium for anonymous communication. If you want that go to the jungle of useless blogs.
I've noticed the same thing. If you attack peoples cherished beliefs (LOTR is the greatest movie EVAR!, Macintosh is Sup3r k00l) people will hate you.
Personally I think there should be a special "controversial" tag to a post. It doesn't give points one way or another, but identifies posts where (gasp) you might not like what the person is saying! Those are often the posts I want to see, not the same old opinions rehashed over and over. You could then set up a +3 to posts marked "controversial", or if you're an establishment type and don't want to hear anything that challenges your views, you mark it down -3.
I've always felt this whole "assembly language makes you a tough guy" argument to be an elitist one. For the record I did study assembly in computer science. Did it make me a better programmer? Maybe, but then learning regular expressions probbably would also have made me a better programmer too (had to learn that on my own). What I have a problem with is this attitude that if you _don't_ know an assembly language, then you're just a mediocre programmer, or somehow a lesser mortal than someone who does.
There's some specific instances where knowing how assembly works might give you some insight into strange esoterics like instruction re-ordering problems in certain multi-threaded atomic operations in Java. (That was a discussion one year at Java-One). But then what area of knowledge in programming doesn't have some specific instances where that special knowledge is extremely pertinent?
I'm glad I know a bit of assembly, how processors work, instruction re-ordering, pipelining, etc. It's all damn cool stuff. But then there's all this other stuff I have little clue about, like bayesian filtering, fuzzy checksums, etc that would be helpfull to know as well. Are the guys who know a lot of assembly better than guys who know cool algorithms? I think they're just different skillsets, and people need to get over their zealotry for a particular skillset.
Unless of course your machine is completely stealthed and doesn't respond with any packets at all (as if there is not machine at that IP address).
Your solution has the added benefit of not having out-of-order delivery problems. If you were to do what another poster suggested, and send multiple packets packets for each "knock", you'd need to implement a sequence number to determine the order.
I think if this idea is going to go anywhere it needs to be standardized and well thought out. Unless it is it's just going to be a clever little hack and never really be very usefull. (Who wants to carry around hackish little scripts or programs with them to do the knocking?)
Everyone has focused on the "does it make you more secure" arguments about this method. I'd be more interested in how it can be implemented properly since no TCP connection is being established using the knocks. I'd assume either a TCP SYN is being sent to the TCP ports, or the protocol uses UDP.
The problem is of course that since no connection is being established, there's no guaranteed delivery of packets, and no guaranteed delivery of packets in the order they were sent. This could be very problematic across network connections that drop packets, and provide you no feedback as to why you can't open your connection. If only 10 % of my packets get dropped, and I require 10 "knocks", I only have.9^10, or 35% chance of my sequence getting to its destination intact. 5% packet loss would up my chances to about 60%. Increasing amounts of knocks decreases my chances of the sequence arriving intact.
Is there a clever way to solve this problem, or is the reliability of it tied to a low amount of packet loss on a network?
So, the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator, and the glaciers are still retreating. This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate".
Good god, if sea level had risen to anywhere _near_.3 of a percent near the equator it would be a natural disaster like no one has ever seen..3 of a percent of the diameter of the earth is 24 miles. That's 12 miles on each side. Do you realize how much seacoast would be underwater?
Where you got your imaginary number I don't know, nowhere in the article does the numer 3 or the word percent appear. The point being that you quite obviously have no means of determining what's "rather frightening" or "an alarming rate", since.3 of a percent change would be _very_ frightening. The real amount of change is on the order of millimeters. Is that frightening or an alarming rate? I have no idea, but more to the point you certainly have no idea.
The stupidest thing about this article, however is that it's from December 5, 2002. While the rising sea level is new to me, it seems rather silly to be argueing about a more than year old article when we've no idea if there's been more information released since.
Please. He's a dumb script kid. His crime is more analogous to breaking into a building and having a party in it. Jail time is hardly appropriate, and is more likely to turn him into a hardcore criminal.
The sentence does seem a bit light though. I think he should probbably have been forced to pay the 21K pounds restitution over a period of years (it's not _that_ much money).
what kind of twit takes the space at a sensitive research facility for MP3s and divx stuff?
I think the word you're looking for is "script kiddie". "Flaw in the authentication method" probbably means one of the multiple holes in ssh.
I seriously doubt anyone but a script kid would be stupid enough to use a compromised server for anything as easily discoverable, and stupid as DLing mp3s and divx movies.
Of course, he did lose to Deep Blue, but despite all his insistance that IBM cheated, he got beat mentally, not necessarily because the computer was better.
But that's part of the game. You can't seperate the mental part of the game from the psychological part of the game. This is one of the big advantages that computers have, they don't get psyched out. It might be more fair to say that Deep Blue didn't beat Kasparov at his best. The computer always plays its best game, humans only some of the time.
The fact is that people use anonymous internet access for "bad" (or at least illegal) things from time to time and you want to be able to monitor these things.
People use cars for "bad" (or at least illegal) things from time to time too. Do you want mandated videotaping in your car? People use pipe wrenches for bad things too, should we monitor all uses of pipe wrenches?
What's special about the internet that requires big brother type monitoring? Is it the connectedness of it? I can do illegal things over an anonymous payphone too, so should all anonymous payphones be monitored?
The wrong part is the city _requiring_ video camera monitoring of these cafes. It's kind of scary when the goverment passes a regulation requiring that people be monitored. I don't have a problem with businesses rights to put up video cameras, I'll just be less likely to go to such places. I do have a problem with required monitoring by the government, since then there's nowhere I can go and not be videotaped. Do you want to be videotaped while you enter in the password to your email account, ssh to your machine, or read "controversial" material on the 'net?
I might not have much expectation of privacy while using someone elses computer, but how about when I bring in my own laptop and use the wireless internet connection?
This is a lot more intrusive than videotaping at a retail store, since people don't do anything very private at a retail store. Reading your email, looking up news, etc are private activities and people get understandably nervous when they're taped doing such activities.
Uhh.. Microsoft will SELL MORE SERVERS if they have a 64 bit machine to compete with Sun, HP, etc. 64 bit is the high end server market where there's serious money to be made, and Microsoft would be stupid to not pursue it. Fat wad of cash? Please. I'm just not buying it. A "fat wad of cash" could explain anything, and is the last resort of a poor argument.
Microsoft has a long and dirty history of colluding with Intel in the interests of their own mutual benefit to the exclusion of the rest of the industry.
True, except in this case I can't see how this would possibly help them. In fact it seems much more likely to hurt them. Why _wouldn't_ Microsoft want an inexpensive 64 bit platform to run windows servers on? Windows will certainly run faster with the extra registers, and having more memory available to a high end server is important.
The only thing I can figure out is MS hasn't gotten its act together and ported Visual Studio to AMD64.
And you are the reason that RBL's cause so much collateral damage. Umm.. Razor, Pyzor and DCC are all programs that create spam SIGNATURES, not RBLs. Reporting a spam virus email to an RBL would be pretty stupid, but that's not what this guy did. Think before you post.
Easy to say, could be hard to do. If MS gets their way and the business world is forced to upgrade to Office 2003, you may not have much choice in the matter when you get sent a word document in XML format.
At the moment I don't think there's much chance of that as Office reached the "good enough" point at Office 97. The point of course is that often you don't have a choice in what software you're forced to run.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, so well-accepted, in fact, that it's standard on many good Wintel motherboards now, most all DV equipment, and most better-than-the-cheapest beige-box PCs from Dell, Sony, HP, etc. Or were you going to connect your brand-new digital camcorder to your USB2 port?
A few MBs support it. Big deal. Firewire is a high end feature that's useless to the average consumer, so it's absent on most mainstream systems. The market for Firewire is A/V, which is a small market and not prone to making it well accepted outside its niche. Apple put it on their machines, and it's never really grown outside its niche. If you'll remember the original point of my post was to counter the claim that Apple blessing a technology does nothing for its general acceptance.
Until FireWire made it obsolete on the consumer level, SCSI was the standard for connecting peripherals that needed more bandwidth or speed than parallel could give, which was basically every storage device there was (except floppies).
More crack smoking. SCSI was a poor standard for connecting.... mostly scanners. You could try to argue the "external hard drive", but that's a niche market just like A/V. The consumer PC market never adopted it because it was expensive, and you're still hard pressed to find a PC outside the server market that supports it onboard. The market that SCSI did serve was replaced by USB, not firewire.
You don't recommend any purchases for people who have laptops, PDAs, or cell fones, do you?
I have a laptop, cell phone, and PDA, and none of them support bluetooth. Maybe if Bluetooth were widely supported on all new cell-phones or PDAs it might make sense, but it isn't.
The Bluetooth market is being crunched on both sides. Wi-Fi is a better connection where I want a real network, and wireless USB is going to crunch it for simple data exchange between devices. The bandwidth is higher so you'll be able to do quick syncing to say an MP3 player, and you'll get the added benefit of wireless mice, keyboards, etc.
The only place Bluetooth might have an advantage is in devicedevice communication. The low power requirements hold an advantage when I have limited battery life on my cell phone and want to send someone a phone number.
Anyway, the point the original article was trying to make was Bluetooth is dead in the PC arena. Why have one low bandwidth, and one high bandwidth protocol (Bluetooth and wireless USB) when you can have one that does everything Bluetooth does?
Yup, just like Firewire is so well accepted, and SCSI has become a standard feature of all PCs.
Apple accepting something means nothing. USB didn't go anywhere until Windows 98 came out since Windows 95 had crappy USB support. If there's not a great need for something, it's much harder for it to be accepted. USB was quickly accepted once it became useable for this very reason. Wi-Fi the same reason.
While it's kinda cool to have a wireless mouse or keyboard, it's not really a great need. Bluetooth is relatively slow at 760 kb/sec, so it's not very practical for anything high bandwidth. Why would I recommend to Joe-User that they make sure their next computer has Bluetooth support?
Your comments frighten me more than the guy being arrested. You don't want to be required to produce ID, but if someone you don't like gets arrested for failing to produce ID, you side with the cop? Do only nice, polite people deserve rights? Is being stupid a crime?
See.. there's this idea that the law is their to protect people. Being a jerk, rude, and arguing might not win you any friends, but it shouldn't get you arrested.
Car, one mistightened nut, and you're in traction.
Wow, you sound like someone that's inherently frightened of their car. Do you really think a single miss-tightened nut could put you in traction? If that were true, there'd be a lot of mechanics guilty of manslaughter. (Read there's a _lot_ of monkey-wrench "mechanics" out there).
There's little danger of endangering your life unless you really screw up the wrong thing. (Like you mess up a tie rod which attatches your wheels to the steering mechanism). Cars aren't airplanes. If you do something wrong fixing them the car might leave you stranded, but you're not going to die.
For the most part the danger of working on your own car is breaking something, just like working on your computer.
What shocks me most is you got modded up so high. Geeks should be ashamed of themselves for being so techo-phobic about non-computer technology. It's just as cool, and probbably a lot more practical to know a bit about fixing your car. I'm not talking about replacing a transmission, but any idiot can do a brake job.
ALl good points, but the kicker is that this ethanol->hydrogen engine requires the catalyst be heated up to 700 degrees. The question is how much energy is required to sustain this reaction? You gain some energy from not having to distill the ethanol as much, but you lose some by having to maintain the catalyst temperature.
You're smoking crack. Saying someone is schizophrenic is an off-handed comment people often make about people that are unbalanced. Any idiot knows it's not a medical opinion. It's about as libelous as saying someone is nuts. I suppose you're now going to sue me for libel for accusing you of smoking crack?
At least from what I've read, yah. Now that particular idea has a lot of neato science-fiction cool factor to it. String theory in general has a lot of that.
The problem of course is that string theory yet to produce any testable predictions. I really like what Sheldon Glashow had to say about this. Essentially he said that if string theory doesn't produce any testable predictions it is philosophy, not science. You have to get more out of a scientific theory than you put into it. Theories have to have utility beyond some personal satisfaction of explanation. Explanations are cheap, but prediction is worth something.
Uhh... what?
So a little over 46 years after humankind first broke free from the gravity well by launching a basketball into orbit we're supposed to have mastered spaceflight? That's like complaining that the first boats we made weren't very safe.
We live in an age where (at least in the developed world) terrible epidemic diseases have been wiped from the planet. Smallpox has been eliminated entirely, polio is headed in that direction. Cars have become incredibly safe even in the last 30 years with the development of airbags, safety glass, 3 point seatbelts, etc. We can perform amazing operations and save people from cancer, heart disease, etc. Hell, we can even cure minor annoyances like going bald to some degree.
I guess the logical thought that some people have is that _everything_ should be safe, and easily fixable. Even bolting yourself to more than a million pounds of explosives, then later re-entering the earths atmosphere at 20,000 MPH should be safe as kittens.
Listen buddy, going into space is inherently dangerous. It's the most dangerous environment we've yet been too. Given that the failure rate is ONLY 2% is pretty amazing. Are there safer ways to do it? Maybe, the space plane idea might just work, but that only makes the first part of the equasion safer. Re-entering the earths atmosphere is just a difficult thing to do since you're relying on the atmoshere to slow you down. Try to put things into a little perspective. Good god, 27 people died building the Brooklynn Bridge alone!
If you think the X-Prize is going to be some magic bullet that makes going into space any _safer_, think again. The goal of the X-Prize is to make going into space _cheaper_. My guess is that it's also going to make it more dangerous, along with cheaper. That's fine.. as more people do it, and everything becomes more perfected the safety will go up.
Life is dangerous. If you want to complain about spending too much money on getting little benefit, fine. But this "safety to the astronauts" argument is just moronic. The astronauts aren't idiots, and know the dangers. Let them take those risks and stop second guessing them.
The point I think the original poster was trying to make was that you don't gain anything militarily by putting people into space. Robots, weapons, spy satelites, sure... but the US won't be putting people up for any secret military plans, there's just no point in doing that.
Typical journalist with a little bit of knowledge gone too far. (If you truly do work for PC Magazine).
Polymorphic/Metamorphic viruses have been around for 10 years at least, and the dumb journalists were just as scared then. I'm still waiting for the dire predictions to come true "when we start seeing more of these". As others have pointed out there's always part of the code that you can't mask, so there's always something to identify the virus with. I'm sure it takes a bit more work to identify the viruses, but the sky hasn't fallen yet.
You should know better if your bio is true, being a grad student of computer science.. but then again grad student quality has dipped pretty low in recent years in CSCI. There's also the journalist taint factor to consider. I'm guessing the magazines/newspapers/TV networks must put lead in the watercooler.
Don't worry, you'll still be able to talk to yourself anonymously. That's almost the same thing as posting to slashdot as AC, or sending out anonymous emails.
The truth is that people generally aren't going to read emails from people they don't know. Do you like getting phone calls from random, anonymous people? Would you listen to someone if they did call you up anonymously? Email is too personal a medium for anonymous communication. If you want that go to the jungle of useless blogs.
I've noticed the same thing. If you attack peoples cherished beliefs (LOTR is the greatest movie EVAR!, Macintosh is Sup3r k00l) people will hate you.
Personally I think there should be a special "controversial" tag to a post. It doesn't give points one way or another, but identifies posts where (gasp) you might not like what the person is saying! Those are often the posts I want to see, not the same old opinions rehashed over and over. You could then set up a +3 to posts marked "controversial", or if you're an establishment type and don't want to hear anything that challenges your views, you mark it down -3.
I've always felt this whole "assembly language makes you a tough guy" argument to be an elitist one. For the record I did study assembly in computer science. Did it make me a better programmer? Maybe, but then learning regular expressions probbably would also have made me a better programmer too (had to learn that on my own). What I have a problem with is this attitude that if you _don't_ know an assembly language, then you're just a mediocre programmer, or somehow a lesser mortal than someone who does.
There's some specific instances where knowing how assembly works might give you some insight into strange esoterics like instruction re-ordering problems in certain multi-threaded atomic operations in Java. (That was a discussion one year at Java-One). But then what area of knowledge in programming doesn't have some specific instances where that special knowledge is extremely pertinent?
I'm glad I know a bit of assembly, how processors work, instruction re-ordering, pipelining, etc. It's all damn cool stuff. But then there's all this other stuff I have little clue about, like bayesian filtering, fuzzy checksums, etc that would be helpfull to know as well. Are the guys who know a lot of assembly better than guys who know cool algorithms? I think they're just different skillsets, and people need to get over their zealotry for a particular skillset.
Unless of course your machine is completely stealthed and doesn't respond with any packets at all (as if there is not machine at that IP address).
Your solution has the added benefit of not having out-of-order delivery problems. If you were to do what another poster suggested, and send multiple packets packets for each "knock", you'd need to implement a sequence number to determine the order.
I think if this idea is going to go anywhere it needs to be standardized and well thought out. Unless it is it's just going to be a clever little hack and never really be very usefull. (Who wants to carry around hackish little scripts or programs with them to do the knocking?)
Everyone has focused on the "does it make you more secure" arguments about this method. I'd be more interested in how it can be implemented properly since no TCP connection is being established using the knocks. I'd assume either a TCP SYN is being sent to the TCP ports, or the protocol uses UDP.
.9^10, or 35% chance of my sequence getting to its destination intact. 5% packet loss would up my chances to about 60%. Increasing amounts of knocks decreases my chances of the sequence arriving intact.
The problem is of course that since no connection is being established, there's no guaranteed delivery of packets, and no guaranteed delivery of packets in the order they were sent. This could be very problematic across network connections that drop packets, and provide you no feedback as to why you can't open your connection. If only 10 % of my packets get dropped, and I require 10 "knocks", I only have
Is there a clever way to solve this problem, or is the reliability of it tied to a low amount of packet loss on a network?
So, the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator, and the glaciers are still retreating. This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate".
Good god, if sea level had risen to anywhere _near_
Where you got your imaginary number I don't know, nowhere in the article does the numer 3 or the word percent appear. The point being that you quite obviously have no means of determining what's "rather frightening" or "an alarming rate", since
The stupidest thing about this article, however is that it's from December 5, 2002. While the rising sea level is new to me, it seems rather silly to be argueing about a more than year old article when we've no idea if there's been more information released since.
Please. He's a dumb script kid. His crime is more analogous to breaking into a building and having a party in it. Jail time is hardly appropriate, and is more likely to turn him into a hardcore criminal.
The sentence does seem a bit light though. I think he should probbably have been forced to pay the 21K pounds restitution over a period of years (it's not _that_ much money).
what kind of twit takes the space at a sensitive research facility for MP3s and divx stuff?
I think the word you're looking for is "script kiddie". "Flaw in the authentication method" probbably means one of the multiple holes in ssh.
I seriously doubt anyone but a script kid would be stupid enough to use a compromised server for anything as easily discoverable, and stupid as DLing mp3s and divx movies.
Of course, he did lose to Deep Blue, but despite all his insistance that IBM cheated, he got beat mentally, not necessarily because the computer was better.
But that's part of the game. You can't seperate the mental part of the game from the psychological part of the game. This is one of the big advantages that computers have, they don't get psyched out. It might be more fair to say that Deep Blue didn't beat Kasparov at his best. The computer always plays its best game, humans only some of the time.
People use cars for "bad" (or at least illegal) things from time to time too. Do you want mandated videotaping in your car? People use pipe wrenches for bad things too, should we monitor all uses of pipe wrenches?
What's special about the internet that requires big brother type monitoring? Is it the connectedness of it? I can do illegal things over an anonymous payphone too, so should all anonymous payphones be monitored?
The wrong part is the city _requiring_ video camera monitoring of these cafes. It's kind of scary when the goverment passes a regulation requiring that people be monitored. I don't have a problem with businesses rights to put up video cameras, I'll just be less likely to go to such places. I do have a problem with required monitoring by the government, since then there's nowhere I can go and not be videotaped. Do you want to be videotaped while you enter in the password to your email account, ssh to your machine, or read "controversial" material on the 'net?
I might not have much expectation of privacy while using someone elses computer, but how about when I bring in my own laptop and use the wireless internet connection?
This is a lot more intrusive than videotaping at a retail store, since people don't do anything very private at a retail store. Reading your email, looking up news, etc are private activities and people get understandably nervous when they're taped doing such activities.
Uhh.. Microsoft will SELL MORE SERVERS if they have a 64 bit machine to compete with Sun, HP, etc. 64 bit is the high end server market where there's serious money to be made, and Microsoft would be stupid to not pursue it. Fat wad of cash? Please. I'm just not buying it. A "fat wad of cash" could explain anything, and is the last resort of a poor argument.
Microsoft has a long and dirty history of colluding with Intel in the interests of their own mutual benefit to the exclusion of the rest of the industry.
True, except in this case I can't see how this would possibly help them. In fact it seems much more likely to hurt them. Why _wouldn't_ Microsoft want an inexpensive 64 bit platform to run windows servers on? Windows will certainly run faster with the extra registers, and having more memory available to a high end server is important.
The only thing I can figure out is MS hasn't gotten its act together and ported Visual Studio to AMD64.
And you are the reason that RBL's cause so much collateral damage.
Umm.. Razor, Pyzor and DCC are all programs that create spam SIGNATURES, not RBLs. Reporting a spam virus email to an RBL would be pretty stupid, but that's not what this guy did. Think before you post.
Easy to say, could be hard to do. If MS gets their
way and the business world is forced to upgrade to Office 2003, you may not have much choice in the matter when you get sent a word document in XML format.
At the moment I don't think there's much chance of that as Office reached the "good enough" point at Office 97. The point of course is that often you don't have a choice in what software you're forced to run.