If AU is going with a firewall, sounds like they may be looking to merge with China.
You can see those controlling tendencies expressed through Rupert's Media outlets in USA. 'Conservative' (exploitive) capitalists in the US and AU have more in common with the dictatorship in China than most EU countries, right now. Capitalists always look to flourish where they can exploit human capital. It's not clear that capitalism can flourish if it doesn't have some underclass to exploit.
You really need to look past your ignorance. The DMCA was required by WIPO treaty and as an extension to part of the berne convention as changed to allow the US to ratify it (which BTW, caused the copyright extensions).
---
And what part of the constitution requires congress to pass laws to enforce treaties unilaterally created by the president? Seems like that would override the normal constitutional protections in our society. While the president can negotiate treaties with foreign powers, does the constitution specify how treaties must be enforced on the people? Which comes first? Constitutional sovereignty or treaty obligations?
this is an old MS trick -- they publish and document it when writing software for their platform -- you need to give the user feedback 'action' -- so they think the computer is doing something -- this is part of the reason why progress bars on windows jump all over the place -- they don't really indicate %done, often, but often crude estimations like trying to decide how much of your file system you've done a find through by only looking at the TLD's. Well when it gets to the "W"'s, it might take a bit longer to enumerate the Windows dir unless they build-in a pre-fudge.
The point is that Vista-V7 (aka Vista v2, windows 7) isn't going to get faster unless the hardware speeds up. MS has added some new layers of mis^h^h^hindirection between the HW and SW -- mostly for DRM purposes. They needed to secure -- and not screw it up or hollywood wouldn't trust them as a distribution platform. Just like several months back... the auto-record features built-in to media player and the Win-Media player versions -- they needed to ensure that they would properly NOT record digital broadcast programs off the air when NBC(of MSNBC) "accidently" turned on the do not allow local time-shifting or recording "flag". They want to prove the superiority of the Windows platform to deliver content by having superior DRM controls on windows which will be slow enabled over time -- but to do all that they had to totally change the driver layer -- disallowing all old XP drivers (except maybe in some degraded compat mode), and get HW manufacturers to only release MS certified drivers. Only drivers certified by MS to conform to MS's security standard will get a signature -- so only signed drivers can be used in a trusted path. It might be the case that if *any* untrusted drivers are loaded, some content providers my disallow playback. It's all about control and prying more rights away from consumers.
We are living a world with mostly fixed resources. The only way for companies to 'grow' (a requirement for businesses in the real world or die -- stagnation isn't good enough) is to further subdivide the rights you already have and and get you(the consumer) used to paying for smaller and smaller portions --
It's like in the US-NorCal region, at least, both Pepsi and Coke (thus virtually all soft drinks) switch from a common 12-pack (advertised to fit perfectly in the fridge -- it did), to an 8-pack (which doesn't, to fill up the same space you need to buy 3 packs and put one sideways in the back. Less ideal, more packaging, more waste). But it allows them to raise the price the per-unit price by 25%, while reducing the package cost by 8% (approx). You can't have major packs of food going for more than certain 'magic amounts' people are used to -- the magic amounts go up slowly, but the other way is to reduce size, and charge near the same...then slowly inch up the price again...repeat.
Perhaps it's just me, but have you ever noticed when some cracker or chip company releases a new flavor of chips or crackers or similar, they'll be bursting with flavor -- then after a promotion period where the advertiser has touted the ALL NEW EXPLOSIVELY INTENSE FLAVOR of NEW XXYZ, the stop adding as much flavoring...and slowly over a 6-12 month period the amount of flavoring drops off till you almost need a an unflavored variety eaten side-by-side to the flavored variety to detect any difference at all.
The effects on this are 'two-fold'. 1), For the consumer who craves the new taste -- they slowly need to start taking more and more of the drug, er, food, to get the same 'taste-fix'. This goes on until the new product is 'cut' too much with non-flavor stuff (white-bread cracker filler - empty carbs and unhealthy (saturated or trans) oils).
The unhealthy oils are used because because the 'healthy oils' (like hemp oil, flax-seed oil, evening primrose, some fish oils, that have Essential Daily Fatty Acids (just as "Essential" as vitamins) have short shelf-lives (on the orde
Why complicate your life with multiple readers....sure, if you really want to -- especially if you _like_ their interface better, but for the supposed sake of security? On a feature that should be off most of the time anyway? With more readers on your system, you have more 'active code' that your computer is regularly exposed to -- isn't there a risk with an increased code base? Sure, Adobe Reader would be more likely to be attacked than other pdf readers, but it's probably 'tested' by a few more users every day.
But um,..."portable documents"...they are like books -- why would you turn "on" scripting in the 1st place in adobe reader? I've never found a need for it. Ever. Then again maybe I'm not downloading gyrating pdf's either....? *shrug*...dunno.
So why would I want javascript running in my Adobe Reader? I've never had it enabled by default in any browser -- and only enable it in a per-site basis when needed. Adobe Reader...that's something I use to read static "Portable Documents" (like books) that are formatted in "Portable Document Format". I've never needed javascript enabled in any book I've ever read. Am I missing something? I just say 'no' to javascript being 'on' as a 'default' option (or activeX, or 'java'). Wasn't there some rich guy who said if you let untrusted others run programs on your computer then its not your computer anymore?
Regardless of whether or not you can disable it, unless it was an *advertised* feature -- if it redirected you to a fake, substitute website that was other than the website you _thought_ you were going to, isn't that evidence of an unauthorized invasion and hack of the device to introduce a 3rd-party, fraudulent, redirection mechanism that can potentially be used not only by D-Link, but also by a cracker attempting a phishing exploit?
In the US, the unauthorized addition of redirection software to a hardware device (which itself would probably qualify as a small computer), with the right lawyer or prosecutor, could result in jail time for the perp, or, if it's a corporation, probably a bonus for the project manger.;^/
I dunno...eight arms? soft? like a pussy cat...hey, lets call it an octopus! Who knows...some day maybe someone can get a Ph.D. studying these creatures -- we could call 'em Doc-Oc...
Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change? Do you think he'll get the Dems to undo the Patriot Act? Do you think he'll get to the bottom of and stop the Wiretaps on US Citizens? Do you think he'll have us 100% out of Iraq in the next week? Month? Year? Decade?
His power is very limited as long as the GOP holds the filibuster-weapon over the senate's head. Something doesn't pass the senate, it doesn't get to Obama's desk for a signature. Everything can be frozen -- including Supreme Court Nominees. Given that up to 25% of respondents questioned (probably by FOX) felt "very afraid" *AFTER* Obama's win was confirmed, it doesn't take a genius to see that 25% of the population acting irrational stubborn -- not even considering irrationally violent actions over the course of the next 2-4 years and one can see that the nation could be headed for far worse social problems than we've ever encountered. All those right-wing "christianist" survivalist, nuke-collecting groups could find themselves aligning with the other "religious" extremists (islamic)... How about a holy-war of monotheist-cultural control-freaks who only care to sow chaos?"
I don't THINK this will happen, but mental-psychological distance between a right-wing militant christinist and a right-wing 'terrorist' (another word for an active> militant) islamist is pretty small if you think about it from an atheist, Confucius, or Buddhist or just "secularist" point of view.
Will he magically fix the economy? If so, how long? What exactly is he going to do?
It took us 28 years to get to this point of America being __barely__ willing to turn away from the direction we've been following since Reagan. He took us from negligible federal debt, where "personal debt" was only, just barely, not considered something from bad luck or bad morals, to over 3T$-Federal Debt and credit-card solicitation mania. I remember looking at the loan market before Reagan worked his VouDon (voodoo) -- credit was VERY tight -- I remember thinking, at the time, only those who didn't NEED credit (or a loan) could obtain it.
Credit market? in the past few years? Sure I'll loan you 125% the value of your overvalued house...*cough*. And Federal Debt? At the end of September we passed 10.1T$. I don't believe that included the bailout costs which are conservatively projected at 1T$, it __appeared__ that Bush&Co, Inc. were trying for one last meta-heist on the treasury before being kicked out of office -- you know how it works -- you hand Freddy and Fanny (.3T$ ea, and when you get out, you get a job with an outrageous salary, 150B$ signing bonus, and a 150B$ golden parachute so when they are replaced by the next administration, they are cush'ed for life.
With or without severe measures, it will take longer than 1 presidential term to 'fix' the economy. Remember, the top tax rates before Reagan for multi-millionaires were, I believe, somewhere around 72-73% (or was that before Nixon?). Still, quite a bit above the rates in effect now OR those in effect before Bush-II, only a minimal economic triage which Obama has suggested as a first step in "fixing" our economy.
1%? Is PGP that efficient? With standard SSH encryption protocols on a 1GHz P-III, I see 100% CPU usage by SSH on the receiving end. It is considerably faster to use a FS protocol like CIFS to xfer files, than attempt to stream files through encryption. Those are just slowdowns on Gigabit network traffic.
I'd think the hit on encryption would be alot more noticeable versus local disk traffic, though I admit to not having tried it -- I felt if encryption cut network throughput by 50% or more, it had to really hurt disk encryption.
So what's the difference between ssh vs. pgp protocols -- is it possible to apply a pgp type protocol to an SSH stream resulting in something like 1% network slowdowns? I guess I don't understand why network traffic would be so much more considerably compute intensive to encrypt vs. disk I/O....??
So in any localized area where there was more anti-matter, the negative energy produced from anti-matter conversions would annihilate any positive energy around, but if there is no energy around, the anti-energy wouldn't be able to exist in our universe. Only as positive energy could it remain in existence -- but positive energy can only inter-exchange with matter -- not anti-matter. Thus after all the matter and antimatter combined, some of the anti-energy would have disappeared/exited from our universe leaving only positive energy and positive matter....or something like that...:-)
This is exactly what the Bush administration has been doing with their contractors -- and so far no one has said it is illegal -- they hire 1 contractor who knows nothing about doing whatever it is they are contracted to do -- then they hire other contractors to do the work -- skimming big bucks off the middle for acting as the go-between between Bush Bush-buddy Bush-buddy's contractor friends.
If this is illegal, when they gonna hit up Washington, because this has been the well documented way of doing almost all contracts in DC since Bush took office.
Sounds like a constitutional issue -- unfair/unequal application of the law...
Note --- this is a bit off the cuff, so I won't say I'm committed to this solution, but....that said:
You know -- the only way to stop this is to stop the insanity. If someone feels they have to catch child porn, then I move to make child porn legal in a free society.
Lets make the *acts* illegal, not pictures, or stories, or images, or cartoons, or thoughts of acts.
This is especially important as computer images become more realistic -- since at some point -- we'll be able to produce "child porn" (by some definition), but it will be entirely in someone's mind -- imaginary and nothing more than an imaginary creation -- yet there will no records of the model's background, nothing to prove their age -- because they would be computer constructs.
On the other hand -- suppose you just ban the material on "looks" -- who decides who looks too young to be with whom? If the images are not of real people, what is the crime? And how will the crime be "evaluated". In "real life" people's ages are hard enough to pin down -- with a bit (or alot) of makeup, real people can look much older or younger -- so how could anyone even begin to think they can come up with some 'fair' way to decide the ages of images of computer characters?
As for real child molesters -- or those who really sexually abuse children -- willful, convicted guilt: castration/ova-ectomy (besides any prison term).
That way -- people and think whatever they wanna think -- and we through the book on them on a real-world, physical violation.
I'm just thinking this child-porn thing is the fine-wedge that is going to be used to crap on every bit of privacy and right that could be left in this world.
Perl is in decline because everyone thinks it is "going away" to be replaced by "perl6" which is a different and incompatible language.
It's almost like Larry, as initial creator of Perl, decided to kill the language, making 'Perl6' one big long suicide project. It's more than a bit sad.
Though last I heard Guido was trying a smaller rendition of the same by going for a new, incompatible version of Python -- but too many people are into the religion of python (vs. religion of Guido) unlike in the perl community, where Larry managed to get most of the language supporters to drink his Kool-Aid.
With Perl as it is known today having "no future" (i.e. it's future is to be replaced by a new language bearing its name), its no wonder it's momentum is going south in a big way.
It's very sad, since Perl served a purpose python never will -- short, 'one-liner' scripts that took the place of sh+sed+awk+tr (etc). A perfect replacement for the cornucopia of unpronounceable unix command line tools.
Yeah! Maybe we should have a law against unreasonable search and seizure! Hey, let's break away from the King George and form our own country!
When we do, lets make sure we include protections from unreasonable searches and seizures in our new nation's laws -- we can put it in a Statement of Rights, or something! You know -- make sure that King George's excesses can't happen in our new country! What do you think, it would be revolutionary!
12X...100GB holds 8 hours of HD, so...that implies it would take 8/12 Hours to write 100GB? Um...wait a second... That's 150GB/second, what bus are they using to write to these things?...I mean that's like 12Gbps...or about 4 times the max-SATA link speed....?!?
I don't think you are going to see a 12X HD-BRD burning on a home PC anytime soon, or am I missing something...?
Holy crap, your statement pretty much describes Microsoft Update. Had me rolling there for a minute.
Of course it does, except MS Update doesn't require [yet] yearly infusions of cash -- they *do* require you to upgrade to their new OS, though, if you want to continue to buy new software. How much software around today would even begin to run on Win98? All ready games and desktop candy are being released that exclusively require features in Vista, that won't be backported. Eventually if you want any new software, you'll find you have to upgrade -- and if you want to keep up on security updates, you will have to upgrade because older software is no longer maintained -- AND that's the point. Many people are running software that works fine for their application and need. But if they want a fix in their product's DNS server, they have to upgrade to a supported product. If the source of "no longer supported products" was released, customers could support themselves until they wanted to move on their own schedule to something new. (By supporting self, I also include hiring someone to do the support).
I've had too many software products that I wanted to keep using - they worked and didn't have some of the problems of older products (like my old phone that got better reception everywhere, but I was forced to replace when the digital reception got flakey. Couldn't get an equivalent product phone -- AND my new phone had to include "Echelon" tech that allows 3rd party activation of my phone and location tracking. So that's another way closed source is used to weasel in new spy and monitor provisions into existing software.
The drugs aren't sold to us, but "diseases" such as ADD/ADHD are. Those who "discovered" ADD/ADHD managed to find a multi-trillion dollar "cure" in the form of "patch" drugs. Much like Coca Cola, perhaps the FDA/AMA is not a good analogy here either.
You can choose to believe in the diseases or not -- and you can choose to believe that the newly "manufactured" diseases apply to you or not. If you think the diseases are a sham, no one is forcing you to take the new meds. Whereas with software, you can't look inside the software and make any decision about how safe it is -- you are told all versions are broken and must be replaced. What can you do? You can't get a second opinion -- because no one can look inside the source to verify if your software has the problem or if the new patch *only* fixes the supposed problem and *only* the supposed problem. With software you are in the dark -- with your health, you can judge whether you feel just fine or you can get a 2nd opinion before you are forced to take a "cure" for your problem.
It's not usually like the borderline case with Gardasil (the HPV vaccine), that isn't for a current condition but is to prevent against something that doesn't exist in you yet -- and it's not usually forced on you (as Gardasil is being forced on all new immigrant women), in spite of CDC recommendations against the requirement).
When patches and shots are forced upon you because you cannot examine your own source code or determine your own risk, it's a very different situation from knowing the secret formula of Coke (which is not a product that's likely going to be causing security breaches in your systems or your body). Please get a clue.
geekmux said: "I sure as hell don't see people boycotting Coca Cola products because they haven't revealed their secret formula to EVERYONE"..
I haven't seen one instance of someone cracking Coke's secret formula and using it to break into a system -- nor have I once seen a buffer overflow or backdoor or just stupid program error in Coke's formula cause billion dollar threats to the internet.
It's real different -- code that goes into computers doesn't go through testing like food or drug products -- as corrupt as drug testing is, it's orders of magnitude more testing than every line of code in a product goes through before being released in a closed source product.
If food and drugs were sold like code, they'd cause fatal lingering diseases that required you to buy a lifetime supply of "patch" drugs from the manufacturer...
Considering that cameras can see facial expressions at 140 feet -- and eyes aren't so great w/o assist. Then there's the micro-expressions lasting maybe a tenth of a second, if you are lucky -- most people don't catch that -- and even if someone is trained, if they blink at the wrong moment. The machine won't blink.
Slashdot Mirror
If AU is going with a firewall, sounds like they may be looking to merge with China.
You can see those controlling tendencies expressed through Rupert's Media outlets in USA. 'Conservative' (exploitive) capitalists in the US and AU have more in common with the dictatorship in China than most EU countries, right now. Capitalists always look to flourish where they can exploit human capital. It's not clear that capitalism can flourish if it doesn't have some underclass to exploit.
You really need to look past your ignorance. The DMCA was required by WIPO treaty and as an extension to part of the berne convention as changed to allow the US to ratify it (which BTW, caused the copyright extensions).
---
And what part of the constitution requires congress to pass laws to enforce treaties unilaterally created by the president?
Seems like that would override the normal constitutional protections in our society. While the president can negotiate treaties with foreign powers, does the constitution specify how treaties must be enforced on the people? Which comes first? Constitutional sovereignty or treaty obligations?
this is an old MS trick -- they publish and document it when writing software for their platform -- you need to give the user feedback 'action' -- so they think the computer is doing something -- this is part of the reason why progress bars on windows jump all over the place -- they don't really indicate %done, often, but often crude estimations like trying to decide how much of your file system you've done a find through by only looking at the TLD's. Well when it gets to the "W"'s, it might take a bit longer to enumerate the Windows dir unless they build-in a pre-fudge.
The point is that Vista-V7 (aka Vista v2, windows 7) isn't going to get faster unless the hardware speeds up. MS has added some new layers of mis^h^h^hindirection between the HW and SW -- mostly for DRM purposes. They needed to secure -- and not screw it up or hollywood wouldn't trust them as a distribution platform. Just like several months back... the auto-record features built-in to media player and the Win-Media player versions -- they needed to ensure that they would properly NOT record digital broadcast programs off the air when NBC(of MSNBC) "accidently" turned on the do not allow local time-shifting or recording "flag". They want to prove the superiority of the Windows platform to deliver content by having superior DRM controls on windows which will be slow enabled over time -- but to do all that they had to totally change the driver layer -- disallowing all old XP drivers (except maybe in some degraded compat mode), and get HW manufacturers to only release MS certified drivers. Only drivers certified by MS to conform to MS's security standard will get a signature -- so only signed drivers can be used in a trusted path. It might be the case that if *any* untrusted drivers are loaded, some content providers my disallow playback. It's all about control and prying more rights away from consumers.
We are living a world with mostly fixed resources. The only way for companies to 'grow' (a requirement for businesses in the real world or die -- stagnation isn't good enough) is to further subdivide the rights you already have and and get you(the consumer) used to paying for smaller and smaller portions --
It's like in the US-NorCal region, at least, both Pepsi and Coke (thus virtually all soft drinks) switch from a common 12-pack (advertised to fit perfectly in the fridge -- it did), to an 8-pack (which doesn't, to fill up the same space you need to buy 3 packs and put one sideways in the back. Less ideal, more packaging, more waste). But it allows them to raise the price the per-unit price by 25%, while reducing the package cost by 8% (approx). You can't have major packs of food going for more than certain 'magic amounts' people are used to -- the magic amounts go up slowly, but the other way is to reduce size, and charge near the same...then slowly inch up the price again...repeat.
Perhaps it's just me, but have you ever noticed when some cracker or chip company releases a new flavor of chips or crackers or similar, they'll be bursting with flavor -- then after a promotion period where the advertiser has touted the ALL NEW EXPLOSIVELY INTENSE FLAVOR of NEW XXYZ, the stop adding as much flavoring...and slowly over a 6-12 month period the amount of flavoring drops off till you almost need a an unflavored variety eaten side-by-side to the flavored variety to detect any difference at all.
The effects on this are 'two-fold'. 1), For the consumer who craves the new taste -- they slowly need to start taking more and more of the drug, er, food, to get the same 'taste-fix'. This goes on until the new product is 'cut' too much with non-flavor stuff (white-bread cracker filler - empty carbs and unhealthy (saturated or trans) oils).
The unhealthy oils are used because because the 'healthy oils' (like hemp oil, flax-seed oil, evening primrose, some fish oils, that have Essential Daily Fatty Acids (just as "Essential" as vitamins) have short shelf-lives (on the orde
Why complicate your life with multiple readers....sure, if you really want to -- especially if you _like_ their interface better, but for the supposed sake of security? On a feature that should be off most of the time anyway? With more readers on your system, you have more 'active code' that your computer is regularly exposed to -- isn't there a risk with an increased code base? Sure, Adobe Reader would be more likely to be attacked than other pdf readers, but it's probably 'tested' by a few more users every day.
But um,..."portable documents"...they are like books -- why would you turn "on" scripting in the 1st
place in adobe reader? I've never found a need for it. Ever. Then again maybe I'm not downloading gyrating pdf's either....? *shrug*...dunno.
So why would I want javascript running in my Adobe Reader? I've never had it enabled by default in any browser -- and only enable it in a per-site basis when needed. Adobe Reader...that's something I use to read static "Portable Documents" (like books) that are formatted in "Portable Document Format". I've never needed javascript enabled in any book I've ever read. Am I missing something? I just say 'no' to javascript being 'on' as a 'default' option (or activeX, or 'java'). Wasn't there some rich guy who said if you let untrusted others run programs on your computer then its not your computer anymore?
Regardless of whether or not you can disable it, unless it was an *advertised* feature -- if it redirected you to a fake, substitute website that was other than the website you _thought_ you were going to, isn't that evidence of an unauthorized invasion and hack of the device to introduce a 3rd-party, fraudulent, redirection mechanism that can potentially be used not only by D-Link, but also by a cracker attempting a phishing exploit?
In the US, the unauthorized addition of redirection software to a hardware device (which itself would probably qualify as a small computer), with the right lawyer or prosecutor, could result in jail time for the perp, or, if it's a corporation, probably a bonus for the project manger. ;^/
I dunno...eight arms? soft? like a pussy cat...hey, lets call it an octopus! Who knows...some day maybe someone can get a Ph.D. studying these creatures -- we could call 'em Doc-Oc...
His power is very limited as long as the GOP holds the filibuster-weapon over the senate's head. Something doesn't pass the senate, it doesn't get to Obama's desk for a signature. Everything can be frozen -- including Supreme Court Nominees. Given that up to 25% of respondents questioned (probably by FOX) felt "very afraid" *AFTER* Obama's win was confirmed, it doesn't take a genius to see that 25% of the population acting irrational stubborn -- not even considering irrationally violent actions over the course of the next 2-4 years and one can see that the nation could be headed for far worse social problems than we've ever encountered. All those right-wing "christianist" survivalist, nuke-collecting groups could find themselves aligning with the other "religious" extremists (islamic)... How about a holy-war of monotheist-cultural control-freaks who only care to sow chaos?"
I don't THINK this will happen, but mental-psychological distance between a right-wing militant christinist and a right-wing 'terrorist' (another word for an active> militant) islamist is pretty small if you think about it from an atheist, Confucius, or Buddhist or just "secularist" point of view.
It took us 28 years to get to this point of America being __barely__ willing to turn away from the direction we've been following since Reagan. He took us from negligible federal debt, where "personal debt" was only, just barely, not considered something from bad luck or bad morals, to over 3T$-Federal Debt and credit-card solicitation mania. I remember looking at the loan market before Reagan worked his VouDon (voodoo) -- credit was VERY tight -- I remember thinking, at the time, only those who didn't NEED credit (or a loan) could obtain it.
Credit market? in the past few years? Sure I'll loan you 125% the value of your overvalued house...*cough*. And Federal Debt? At the end of September we passed 10.1T$. I don't believe that included the bailout costs which are conservatively projected at 1T$, it __appeared__ that Bush&Co, Inc. were trying for one last meta-heist on the treasury before being kicked out of office -- you know how it works -- you hand Freddy and Fanny ( .3T$ ea, and when you get out, you get a job with an outrageous salary, 150B$ signing bonus, and a 150B$ golden parachute so when they are replaced by the next administration, they are cush'ed for life.
With or without severe measures, it will take longer than 1 presidential term to 'fix' the economy. Remember, the top tax rates before Reagan for multi-millionaires were, I believe, somewhere around 72-73% (or was that before Nixon?). Still, quite a bit above the rates in effect now OR those in effect before Bush-II, only a minimal economic triage which Obama has suggested as a first step in "fixing" our economy.
-l
1%? Is PGP that efficient? With standard SSH encryption protocols on a 1GHz P-III, I see 100% CPU usage
by SSH on the receiving end. It is considerably faster to use a FS protocol like CIFS to xfer files, than
attempt to stream files through encryption. Those are just slowdowns on Gigabit network traffic.
I'd think the hit on encryption would be alot more noticeable versus local disk traffic, though I admit to not having tried it -- I felt if encryption cut network throughput by 50% or more, it had to really hurt disk encryption.
So what's the difference between ssh vs. pgp protocols -- is it possible to apply a pgp type protocol to an SSH stream resulting in something like 1% network slowdowns? I guess I don't understand why network traffic would be so much more considerably compute intensive to encrypt vs. disk I/O....??
Can anyone shed some light on this?
If E=Mc^2, then wouldn't -M*c^2=-E?.
So in any localized area where there was more anti-matter, the negative energy produced from anti-matter conversions would annihilate any positive energy around, but if there is no energy around, the anti-energy wouldn't be able to exist in our universe. Only as positive energy could it remain in existence -- but positive energy can only inter-exchange with matter -- not anti-matter. Thus after all the matter and antimatter combined, some of the anti-energy would have disappeared/exited from our universe leaving only positive energy and positive matter. ...or something like that...:-)
This is exactly what the Bush administration has been doing with their contractors -- and so far no one has said it is illegal -- they hire 1 contractor who knows nothing about doing whatever it is they are contracted to do -- then they hire other contractors to do the work -- skimming big bucks off the middle
for acting as the go-between between Bush Bush-buddy Bush-buddy's contractor friends.
If this is illegal, when they gonna hit up Washington, because this has been the well documented way of doing almost all contracts in DC since Bush took office.
Sounds like a constitutional issue -- unfair/unequal application of the law...
Note --- this is a bit off the cuff, so I won't say I'm committed to this solution, but....that said:
You know -- the only way to stop this is to stop the insanity. If someone feels they have to catch child porn, then I move to make child porn legal in a free society.
Lets make the *acts* illegal, not pictures, or stories, or images, or cartoons, or thoughts of acts.
This is especially important as computer images become more realistic -- since at some point -- we'll be able to produce "child porn" (by some definition), but it will be entirely in someone's mind -- imaginary and nothing more than an imaginary creation -- yet there will no records of the model's background, nothing to prove their age -- because they would be computer constructs.
On the other hand -- suppose you just ban the material on "looks" -- who decides who looks too young to be with whom? If the images are not of real people, what is the crime? And how will the crime be "evaluated". In "real life" people's ages are hard enough to pin down -- with a bit (or alot) of makeup, real people can look much older or younger -- so how could anyone even begin to think they can come up with some 'fair' way to decide the ages of images of computer characters?
As for real child molesters -- or those who really sexually abuse children -- willful, convicted guilt: castration/ova-ectomy (besides any prison term).
That way -- people and think whatever they wanna think -- and we through the book on them on a real-world, physical violation.
I'm just thinking this child-porn thing is the fine-wedge that is going to be used to crap on every bit of privacy and right that could be left in this world.
-l
You can also tell it to not prompt you -- just "Deny".
Also you don't have to delete each, singly, there is a delete all...:-)
Perl is in decline because everyone thinks it is "going away" to be replaced by "perl6" which is a different and incompatible language.
It's almost like Larry, as initial creator of Perl, decided to kill the language, making 'Perl6' one big long suicide project. It's more than a bit sad.
Though last I heard Guido was trying a smaller rendition of the same by going for a new, incompatible version of Python -- but too many people are into the religion of python (vs. religion of Guido) unlike in the perl community, where Larry managed to get most of the language supporters to drink his Kool-Aid.
With Perl as it is known today having "no future" (i.e. it's future is to be replaced by a new language bearing its name), its no wonder it's momentum is going south in a big way.
It's very sad, since Perl served a purpose python never will -- short, 'one-liner' scripts that took the place of sh+sed+awk+tr (etc). A perfect replacement for the cornucopia of unpronounceable unix command line tools.
Yeah!
Maybe we should have a law against unreasonable search and seizure! Hey, let's break away from the King George and form our own country!
When we do, lets make sure we include protections from unreasonable searches and seizures in our new nation's laws -- we can put it in a Statement of Rights, or something! You know -- make sure that King George's excesses can't happen in our new country! What do you think, it would be revolutionary!
Ever get that sense of Déjà vu?
*Doh*!!!
Sometimes I don't see trees for the 12X magnification. Thanks!
(just too excitable at speeds...)
-l
When I first looked at the video, I thought it was a rerun of a Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea episode...
I guess the Atlantis puddle-jumpers aren't a practical prototype with the need for a forcefield and anti-grav technology.
12X...100GB holds 8 hours of HD, so...that implies it would take 8/12 Hours to write 100GB?
Um...wait a second...
That's 150GB/second, what bus are they using to write to these things?...I mean that's like
12Gbps...or about 4 times the max-SATA link speed....?!?
I don't think you are going to see a 12X HD-BRD burning on a home PC anytime soon, or am I missing something...?
Of course it does, except MS Update doesn't require [yet] yearly infusions of cash -- they *do* require you to upgrade to their new OS, though, if you want to continue to buy new software. How much software around today would even begin to run on Win98? All ready games and desktop candy are being released that exclusively require features in Vista, that won't be backported. Eventually if you want any new software, you'll find you have to upgrade -- and if you want to keep up on security updates, you will have to upgrade because older software is no longer maintained -- AND that's the point. Many people are running software that works fine for their application and need. But if they want a fix in their product's DNS server, they have to upgrade to a supported product. If the source of "no longer supported products" was released, customers could support themselves until they wanted to move on their own schedule to something new. (By supporting self, I also include hiring someone to do the support).
I've had too many software products that I wanted to keep using - they worked and didn't have some of the problems of older products (like my old phone that got better reception everywhere, but I was forced to replace when the digital reception got flakey. Couldn't get an equivalent product phone -- AND my new phone had to include "Echelon" tech that allows 3rd party activation of my phone and location tracking. So that's another way closed source is used to weasel in new spy and monitor provisions into existing software.
You can choose to believe in the diseases or not -- and you can choose to believe that the newly "manufactured" diseases apply to you or not. If you think the diseases are a sham, no one is forcing you to take the new meds. Whereas with software, you can't look inside the software and make any decision about how safe it is -- you are told all versions are broken and must be replaced. What can you do? You can't get a second opinion -- because no one can look inside the source to verify if your software has the problem or if the new patch *only* fixes the supposed problem and *only* the supposed problem. With software you are in the dark -- with your health, you can judge whether you feel just fine or you can get a 2nd opinion before you are forced to take a "cure" for your problem.
It's not usually like the borderline case with Gardasil (the HPV vaccine), that isn't for a current condition but is to prevent against something that doesn't exist in you yet -- and it's not usually forced on you (as Gardasil is being forced on all new immigrant women), in spite of CDC recommendations against the requirement).
When patches and shots are forced upon you because you cannot examine your own source code or determine your own risk, it's a very different situation from knowing the secret formula of Coke (which is not a product that's likely going to be causing security breaches in your systems or your body). Please get a clue.
geekmux said: "I sure as hell don't see people boycotting Coca Cola products because they haven't revealed their secret formula to EVERYONE"..
I haven't seen one instance of someone cracking Coke's secret formula and using it to break into a system -- nor have I once seen a buffer overflow or backdoor or just stupid program error in Coke's formula cause billion dollar threats to the internet.
It's real different -- code that goes into computers doesn't go through testing like food or drug products -- as corrupt as drug testing is, it's orders of magnitude more testing than every line of code in a product goes through before being released in a closed source product.
If food and drugs were sold like code, they'd cause fatal lingering diseases that required you to buy a lifetime supply of "patch" drugs from the manufacturer...
Low mileage is another factor in reducing rates.
Do they have well funded lobbyists?
That's an idea...maybe the people need a federal office of lobbying for lobbying for the PEOPLE?
Considering that cameras can see facial expressions at 140 feet -- and eyes aren't so great w/o assist. Then there's the micro-expressions lasting maybe a tenth of a second, if you are lucky -- most people don't catch that -- and even if someone is trained, if they blink at the wrong moment. The machine won't blink.
writer attempted:
This is irregardless of wether
I don't suppose you went to the same school as George Bush, did you?
Normally I let these things go, but "irregardless"? Followed by "wether"?
Geez...
Proxies won't be a problem in sourcing IP's -- the proxy owner is the source. Do that enough and the "proxy problem" will go away... ;~!