it is merely and inconvenience and private threat to law-abiding citizens. any criminal with half a brain-cell will use their own crypto on top of any encrypted or open links. the technology is already out there and cannot be recalled.
how does the government propose to revoke bin laden's existing crypto? how will this new law possible stop him or others? that's right, it won't.
how is is that Microsoft's shrinkwrap waivers of ANY liability hold water compared to equally strong-worded waivers for open source software? why isn't Microsoft getting dragged into this compensation frenzy when their products, arguably, lose/damage more data than any other single entity (outside of the government).
Re:Very, very difficult problem: Designing cheap..
on
E-Paper Moves Closer
·
· Score: 1
video cards are more expensive because they output analog. if this requirement were removed, it would reduce complexity and component count.
in fact, LCD panels are more expensive and complicated because of the need for circuitry that converts analog signal back to digital for display. this constraint would apply to any form of e-paper or other digital display.
this is a legacy issue dating back to the first PCs.
leads straight to hell... except that I seriously doubt if there are any truly good intentions behind this bill. it serves nearly to sole purpose of reinforcing Microsofts monopoly. since you must use an authorized/approved security scheme, how many of those do you think will be available to open-source systems? any number greater than zero would be surprising, to say the least.
Good point. And when I talk about 'Services', I mean consulting. Consultants need to be trained on the tools they use as well as the field technicians who fix hardware. Arguably, training Consultans on a variety of software is harder than training field technicians since consultans are asked to do much wackier things with the tools they are given:)
Ironically, consultants tend to be negatively impacted by an overly-large palatte of tools to choose from. Too little is bad, but too many means they cannot develop depth of expertise. HP + Compaq more than doubles the complexity for consultants.
Lastly, I did not claim Linux was better than Tru64. Linux may be very well served by emulating Tru64. The issue is traction and support. Linux has far greater traction, has been ported to more hardware and has more drivers than Tru64. It also has more developers. And HP+Compaq needs developers to sell hardware.
And IBM is already committed to Linux. So HP either chooses Linux to gain an equal footing or foolishly pursues it's own massive matrix of proprietary hardware/os offerings. Like the article says: "If HP continues to place equal emphasis on the various operating systems, it will likely survive. But HP could have difficulty growing in the high-end server market and in services. Fiorina's job could become one of managing decline rather than leading growth."
Services will not pull them out of this one and training a new/larger field service group in a plethora of new technologies will not be cheap. My money says they will not succeed. Only a simplification and rationalization of offerings will. Linux looks like an excellent choice as it is beginning to make a buzz in boardrooms.
not state, Federal. it happened in Texas like Waco, but who took the heat for that one? so, yes, the Bush administration is ultimately to blame. this is another, in a long series of blunders that are setting us up for some ugly international repercussions.
What really gets me about this attitude is that you could say that about any religion if you were unbiased. It just that the US media doesn't use terminology like radical fundmentalist Catholic/Protestant/Jew to describe situations in Northern Ireland/Israel. These terms are reserved for Muslims in the US and other places where US media dominates.
Using your terminology, we could justify raids on all kind of Synagogues or Churches since they are fronts disguised as charities to move money around. Yes, some of them are. How about that. Deny it an you're either a liar or ignorant. Of course, it's a small minority, but we have such a tendency to focus on the minority and miss the bigger picture.
"casing the joint" is not illegal unless you trespass. So passive collection of data (i.e. remote observation) whether via reception of photons (eyeballs) or radio waves (802.11 card) is OK.
On the other hand, if you walk up the driveway and turn the front door knob, try to lift the window, or poke at other "well known ports", I think should be considered trespassing and punishable. Exceptions to the rule would be legitimate public interfaces like knocking on the front door or an HTTP GET on port 80.
I'm still not convinced that's all that safe. For example, do you believe that two machines attached via a hub (not switch) using ssh or vpn to establish a link is totally safe from a third machine attached to the same hub?
Some pretty clever hacks were employed back in the day before wirespread use of switches and those hacks are all relevant once again against wireless networks. Don't be lulled into a false sense of security just because you think you negotiated an encrypted link.
True. HDTV is a complete disaster. But you're wrong about the quality. It is significantly better. You just have to lay down the bucks for decent hardware.
Having said that, I just cancelled my DirecTV subscription. I originally got it because they promised HDTV programming. After 1 year, this turned out to be 1 channel (HBO) and an infernal demo loop of the same old shit every day. Solution: go down to Radio Shack and buy the biggest honking roof aerial antenna you can find.
DirecTV -- you're a bunch of dicks. When I called about getting the SuperBowl in HDTV, they responded that they weren't carrying it due to lack of customer demand. What a crock! I stated that I was a customer and I demanded it. Oh, well. That's why they're in the toilet and bleeding customers and money.
The public knows little about this; even some experts are unaware of the machinations. Not surprisingly, television has not covered it. But the consequences, for all of us, are staggering. Given the stakes, and the power of the players, it will get attention eventually ? but if past experience is any guide, only after the critical decisions have been made. Maybe some reporter, somewhere, now will decide to focus his or her attention on a potential $200-billion rape of the American taxpayer.
The machinations on Capitol Hill are increasingly out of control. Of course the broadcasters will get their cake and eat it too (selling spectrum they were given for free) since they only have to funnel a small % of the proceeds to suddenly supportive senators.
Let's dispense with the formalities and just post a large for-sale sign outside the capitol:
laws and regulations starting in the low 500's. modern and convenient. spaciously appointed. no need to wait.
What the hell? Fox was probably surprised because he couldn't believe that Miguel doesn't understand that an entire country is not going to pay retail.
...
And I'll bet he has absolutely no clue how much he damaged his credibility in that one meeting.
I'm sure Miguel fully understands discounting and that Microsoft would nearly give it away to prevent a Linux infiltration. It's called lying with statistics, and no one should be above it. Take the BSA and their exaggerated claims about how much piracy costs companies each year. Do you think they're going to qualify that astounding and ridiculous number with a small bit of truth like the fact that most pirates would never have purchased the product in the first place... the only reason they use it/got it is because they could.
So, yes, Miguel understands. He also understands that Microsoft is on the other side make equally ridiculous claims about the huge maintenance costs of free software and the fact that there's no accountability not anyone to turn to for support. We know this is bullshit, but they're going to say it anyway.
What Mr. Fox should really be worrying about is not the up-front cost, but the long-term lock-in and dependence on a company that is <understatement> not necessarily looking out for Mexico's best interests </understatement>.
Alan Turing didn't crack the Enigma cipher. He refined the method pioneered by Marian Rejewski. Later when the Germans corrected the weakness that Rejewski's method exploited, he was able to once again extend the method to reduce the brute force cracking time.
and it never claimed to be. it's a news weblog with reader comments... unless you call this, what I am doing now, journalism. bullshit. this corrected point of view reveals his entire rant on slashdot to be a load of steaming sensationalism. mention slashdot, especially in a negative way and it's instant traffic, just like the marketing department ordered.
yes, unavoidable so long as it takes more computational horsepower to generate, send, collect packets and compensate for errors (vast/huge) than it is to generate a TCP checksum (trivial).
2. unethetical --
yes, so long as your using someone elses resources without their knowledge or implied consent. if you put up a web server and someone is legitimately accessing your content (perusing/reading articles for example), that's implied consent. if someone decides to use your web server to perform load testing without informing you, that's an unauthorized use/abuse under the law. try this with NYT or Yahoo sometime and see how fast you end up in court.
no, it cannot be made practical in anything like it's present form. it's not really even clever or slick compared to other (illegal) parasitic uses of computers and network infrastructures. unless we solve the first two points, who go on?
The moral of the story is that with enough money, you can craft your own law. The moral of the story is also that our lawmakers neither "get it" nor do they care. Until their polls tell them they're on the wrong side of the issue, expect more corporate-sponsored shackles on our hard-won freedoms (hard won by our ancestors, that is).
Laws CAN be wrong. It's happened before (segregation, voting rights, prohibition, etc) and it'll happen again. We sit by idly at our own peril.
Does this mean that I can purchase the rights to do a public screening of "Dirty Dancing" and then show it in Afganistan and some representative of the movie studio would be extradited to Kabul and tried by the Taliban?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just waiting for this make it in as a kernel option (iptables) so that I can trap all inbound connections to ports that aren't listening.
it is merely and inconvenience and private threat to law-abiding citizens. any criminal with half a brain-cell will use their own crypto on top of any encrypted or open links. the technology is already out there and cannot be recalled.
how does the government propose to revoke bin laden's existing crypto? how will this new law possible stop him or others? that's right, it won't.
that all "usefull tools for terrorists" are fair game as freedoms to be abridged? just wait until thinking becomes a "usefull tools for terrorists".
if you want to live in a totalitarian/police/religious state, please go elsewhere.
you we prefer to be "living" safely in a musty 6x6 cell than fighting/dying for freedom or a better opportunity?
and they're sure about their target, then this better not be a puny fucking response.
how is is that Microsoft's shrinkwrap waivers of ANY liability hold water compared to equally strong-worded waivers for open source software? why isn't Microsoft getting dragged into this compensation frenzy when their products, arguably, lose/damage more data than any other single entity (outside of the government).
video cards are more expensive because they output analog. if this requirement were removed, it would reduce complexity and component count.
in fact, LCD panels are more expensive and complicated because of the need for circuitry that converts analog signal back to digital for display. this constraint would apply to any form of e-paper or other digital display.
this is a legacy issue dating back to the first PCs.
leads straight to hell... except that I seriously doubt if there are any truly good intentions behind this bill. it serves nearly to sole purpose of reinforcing Microsofts monopoly. since you must use an authorized/approved security scheme, how many of those do you think will be available to open-source systems? any number greater than zero would be surprising, to say the least.
Good point. And when I talk about 'Services', I mean consulting. Consultants need to be trained on the tools they use as well as the field technicians who fix hardware. Arguably, training Consultans on a variety of software is harder than training field technicians since consultans are asked to do much wackier things with the tools they are given :)
Ironically, consultants tend to be negatively impacted by an overly-large palatte of tools to choose from. Too little is bad, but too many means they cannot develop depth of expertise. HP + Compaq more than doubles the complexity for consultants.
Lastly, I did not claim Linux was better than Tru64. Linux may be very well served by emulating Tru64. The issue is traction and support. Linux has far greater traction, has been ported to more hardware and has more drivers than Tru64. It also has more developers. And HP+Compaq needs developers to sell hardware.
And IBM is already committed to Linux. So HP either chooses Linux to gain an equal footing or foolishly pursues it's own massive matrix of proprietary hardware/os offerings. Like the article says: "If HP continues to place equal emphasis on the various operating systems, it will likely survive. But HP could have difficulty growing in the high-end server market and in services. Fiorina's job could become one of managing decline rather than leading growth."
Services will not pull them out of this one and training a new/larger field service group in a plethora of new technologies will not be cheap. My money says they will not succeed. Only a simplification and rationalization of offerings will. Linux looks like an excellent choice as it is beginning to make a buzz in boardrooms.
not state, Federal. it happened in Texas like Waco, but who took the heat for that one? so, yes, the Bush administration is ultimately to blame. this is another, in a long series of blunders that are setting us up for some ugly international repercussions.
What really gets me about this attitude is that you could say that about any religion if you were unbiased. It just that the US media doesn't use terminology like radical fundmentalist Catholic/Protestant/Jew to describe situations in Northern Ireland/Israel. These terms are reserved for Muslims in the US and other places where US media dominates.
Using your terminology, we could justify raids on all kind of Synagogues or Churches since they are fronts disguised as charities to move money around. Yes, some of them are. How about that. Deny it an you're either a liar or ignorant. Of course, it's a small minority, but we have such a tendency to focus on the minority and miss the bigger picture.
my remaining options are tcl, awk or bash :)
os written in lisp? done.
os written in C? done.
os written in asm? done.
os written in java? "done"
my remaining options are perl, tcl or awk.... hmmm.
"casing the joint" is not illegal unless you trespass. So passive collection of data (i.e. remote observation) whether via reception of photons (eyeballs) or radio waves (802.11 card) is OK.
On the other hand, if you walk up the driveway and turn the front door knob, try to lift the window, or poke at other "well known ports", I think should be considered trespassing and punishable. Exceptions to the rule would be legitimate public interfaces like knocking on the front door or an HTTP GET on port 80.
I'm still not convinced that's all that safe. For example, do you believe that two machines attached via a hub (not switch) using ssh or vpn to establish a link is totally safe from a third machine attached to the same hub?
Some pretty clever hacks were employed back in the day before wirespread use of switches and those hacks are all relevant once again against wireless networks. Don't be lulled into a false sense of security just because you think you negotiated an encrypted link.
True. HDTV is a complete disaster. But you're wrong about the quality. It is significantly better. You just have to lay down the bucks for decent hardware.
Having said that, I just cancelled my DirecTV subscription. I originally got it because they promised HDTV programming. After 1 year, this turned out to be 1 channel (HBO) and an infernal demo loop of the same old shit every day. Solution: go down to Radio Shack and buy the biggest honking roof aerial antenna you can find.
DirecTV -- you're a bunch of dicks. When I called about getting the SuperBowl in HDTV, they responded that they weren't carrying it due to lack of customer demand. What a crock! I stated that I was a customer and I demanded it. Oh, well. That's why they're in the toilet and bleeding customers and money.
The machinations on Capitol Hill are increasingly out of control. Of course the broadcasters will get their cake and eat it too (selling spectrum they were given for free) since they only have to funnel a small % of the proceeds to suddenly supportive senators.
Let's dispense with the formalities and just post a large for-sale sign outside the capitol:
laws and regulations starting in the low 500's. modern and convenient. spaciously appointed. no need to wait.
What the hell? Fox was probably surprised because he couldn't believe that Miguel doesn't understand that an entire country is not going to pay retail.
...
And I'll bet he has absolutely no clue how much he damaged his credibility in that one meeting.
I'm sure Miguel fully understands discounting and that Microsoft would nearly give it away to prevent a Linux infiltration. It's called lying with statistics, and no one should be above it. Take the BSA and their exaggerated claims about how much piracy costs companies each year. Do you think they're going to qualify that astounding and ridiculous number with a small bit of truth like the fact that most pirates would never have purchased the product in the first place... the only reason they use it/got it is because they could.
So, yes, Miguel understands. He also understands that Microsoft is on the other side make equally ridiculous claims about the huge maintenance costs of free software and the fact that there's no accountability not anyone to turn to for support. We know this is bullshit, but they're going to say it anyway.
What Mr. Fox should really be worrying about is not the up-front cost, but the long-term lock-in and dependence on a company that is <understatement> not necessarily looking out for Mexico's best interests </understatement>.
Alan Turing didn't crack the Enigma cipher. He refined the method pioneered by Marian Rejewski. Later when the Germans corrected the weakness that Rejewski's method exploited, he was able to once again extend the method to reduce the brute force cracking time.
and it never claimed to be. it's a news weblog with reader comments... unless you call this, what I am doing now, journalism. bullshit. this corrected point of view reveals his entire rant on slashdot to be a load of steaming sensationalism. mention slashdot, especially in a negative way and it's instant traffic, just like the marketing department ordered.
1. impractical --
yes, unavoidable so long as it takes more computational horsepower to generate, send, collect packets and compensate for errors (vast/huge) than it is to generate a TCP checksum (trivial).
2. unethetical --
yes, so long as your using someone elses resources without their knowledge or implied consent. if you put up a web server and someone is legitimately accessing your content (perusing/reading articles for example), that's implied consent. if someone decides to use your web server to perform load testing without informing you, that's an unauthorized use/abuse under the law. try this with NYT or Yahoo sometime and see how fast you end up in court.
no, it cannot be made practical in anything like it's present form. it's not really even clever or slick compared to other (illegal) parasitic uses of computers and network infrastructures. unless we solve the first two points, who go on?
there, we haven't dismissed it out of hand.
what exactly is their revenue model. I hope it's not just selling this or this...
and I think they dropped the whole services idea.
The moral of the story is that with enough money, you can craft your own law. The moral of the story is also that our lawmakers neither "get it" nor do they care. Until their polls tell them they're on the wrong side of the issue, expect more corporate-sponsored shackles on our hard-won freedoms (hard won by our ancestors, that is).
Laws CAN be wrong. It's happened before (segregation, voting rights, prohibition, etc) and it'll happen again. We sit by idly at our own peril.
Does this mean that I can purchase the rights to do a public screening of "Dirty Dancing" and then show it in Afganistan and some representative of the movie studio would be extradited to Kabul and tried by the Taliban?
It's madness.
no, it's brilliant!