Automatically assign an address on the 169.254.0.0/16 network if no DHCP server is found. Continue making DHCP requests every 2-4 minutes until DHCP server does respond...
"In addition, a 1 per cent sales tax would be placed on Internet services and new computers -- two industries that many argue have profited enormously from rampant file-sharing..."
...for my friggin' phone company (Cingular) to give me web browsing access from my phone without charging me one cent per kB. What is this, 1970? Who charges $10 per megabyte of data transfer???
People should stop buying these crappy feature-loaded phones. Instead, start demanding that the few useful features be good. So your phone has facial recognition but can't make a 5 minute call without cutting you off?
To anyone who reads your inferiority-complex-ridden post, it looks more like you're busy trying to convince yourself that America is not Supreme.
Slashdot is not a pro-American forum. If you were paying attention, you would realize that America is not criticizing the rest of the world -- the rest of the world is criticizing the Chinese government.
I wanted to mod you down, but I don't currently have any mod points. Sorry.
...be required to write a non-trivial optimizing compiler for a popular language before they are allowed to program at all.
Then they will know what the compiler can and can't optimize and will know what to put their effort into.
One time I was talking to a guy who was writing a program in assembly and asked why he wasn't using a higher level language. He told me it wouldn't be fast enough. So I asked him if he does strength reduction and loop invariant removal by himself. His reply: "Huh?" If he doesn't appear to understand such simple common compiler optimizations, I'm almost positive the compiler would have done a better job than him. I didn't tell him that, though.
It reminds me of the dilbert cartoon I saw where someone asked evil Catbert if he had heard any complaints about his department. He said, "I haven't listened to a single complaint."
That's what I think of when I hear Micros~1 say, "but we've only patched 15 vulnerabilities!"
The problem with most companies is that they learn to be miserly penny-pinchers when they go through bad times, and it's something they get used to and never grow out of. Even when things get better, salaries, bonuses and benefits often *don't* (except for the upper management, of course).
I like the company I work for, but unfortunately, I may need to go someplace else if I want my career (and salary) to advance...
But, in this context, "to know" is also defined within that system, and is therefore consistent by definition. This regression of the concept of knowledge that you present ("know for sure") has no meaning, because we are not connected to that context in any way; it's completely void.
It's like the "brains in a vat" argument. Asking "am I a brain in a vat?" is futile because there is no connection between ourselves and that "outer reality" which would allow us to meaningfully say "I am a brain in a vat." If you could meaningfully say it, then you wouldn't be a brain in a vat!
In our case, we can't question reason, because in order to do so, we would need to use reason. You can't use Godel's incompleteness theorem to state that we don't know anything because it becomes meaningless by the time you reach the end of the assertion. Hence the banal, "Do you know that for sure?" question that you've already received from a fellow slashdotter. You have a priori knowledge. Your daily thoughts and actions prove it. Saying, "but I don't REALLY know anything FOR SURE" is absolutely meaningless.
No, screw that. As long as you're being idealistic, they should forget the "DO NOT SPAM" list altogether. They should have a "DO SPAM" list, so people opt-in instead of opt-out. Then you can publish the list of addresses without even hashing them.
Sucker. You haven't thought much about what Bin Laden has said, have you? You shouldn't listen to Bin Laden's words as if he were an objective newscaster. He's trying to get the world to stop fighting against him and his organization while he builds a large base of pawns that he can use for his attacks.
Bin Laden was attempting to influence the election. He was trying to get Bush out of office because he perceives Kerry as less of a threat to him. I didn't vote for Bush, but if Bin Laden hates him, he must be doing something right.
Bin Ladin is going to attempt to take credit for anything that happens because it's good for his recruitment. Whether or not what's happening was his intention is certainly questionable. The fact that he's gloating and already counting his chickens makes his statements very suspect.
Most people (especially on Slashdot) don't find Macs "more geeky."
Most people learn as teenagers that most gadgets are relatively useless. They don't increase productivity or make living easier. At work I design and write software for some of the "cool" gadgets you're thinking of, but unless you think of them as a status symbol (you obviously do) there are few reasons to own them.
Unless you live in Luxembourg, the average citizen of your country is certainly not as rich as the average citizen of the USA. This is in spite of the constant and heavy influx of poor immigrants and the current perceived poor performance of the US economy.
If you get modded down, it doesn't mean that what you say is true. It's understandable -- lots of people like to feel like victims.
Actually, cars haven't changed very much in the last 50 years. Sure, there is often a CD player in the dash instead of a cassette, and more creature comforts are standard, but that's about it. However, it is profitable for the automobile industry to make you think that automobile technology is advancing at an incredible rate. That way they keep you on their subscription plan.
One of my cars is a 1981. People are very surprised when they see that it has power windows, door locks, mirrors, etc., and that it has A/C. One person who rode in my car was surprised that it had seat belts!! People think that the world didn't have that kind of technology 25 years ago. I'm only 28 years old, but I'm old enough to know that the auto industry has been ripping people off for at least that long.
Try calculating how big a 128-bit storage device would be if it *only* required one atom per bit of storage. Then try calculating how much energy it would take to switch 2^128 transistors from 0 to 1.
This is certainly not the same thing at the ol' 640-kB cliche. There are certain physical limits that are being approached here. Maybe you don't understand just how big 2^128 is.
JPEG takes advantage of the limitations of the human eye. For one, it uses a YCbCr/YUV colorspace, in which case (depending on the subsampling used) color information takes only 1/2 or 1/4 as much as it would in an RGB image (luminance information is still sampled at 1x1). Color televisions work this way, too. This is because the human eye doesn't see color resolution as well. Each channel is compressed separately, and it uses discrete cosine transforms to do the compression, which was a really good idea.
If you were to take a picture and compress it with PNG, and then take a picture and compress it with JPG, you would almost always get a MUCH smaller image with JPG (we're talking orders of magnitude). And, putting them side by side, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference with 99.99% of them. This is why cameras use JPG.
Just because JPG is lossless doesn't mean it's inferior. Get over it. PNG is good for some stuff, JPG is better for other things. I'm amazed at the number of professional graphics designers that can't grasp this high-school level understanding of compression and color science.
I have several accounts that I have given to nobody -- not friends, relatives, or even my wife -- for the purposes of testing whether or not they would get spam. Several of them are receiving spam. Even my root account is getting spam (though that's not so hard to guess). I'm not sure how the spammers' guessing algorithms work, but they do a pretty good job.
In addition, I have two accounts that I use regularly -- one that I give to everyone (web registration forms, etc) where I don't care about spam, and another one that is personal and I only give to close friends. Guess which one gets more spam? That's right. My personal account gets about 150 per day. My "don't care" account gets like 6 per day. They have both been active for many years.
Movie theaters don't display the picture the same way a CRT does, and yet I'd assume people are just as "doped up" in a theater (if not more so) as they are watching TV. By the way, do a Google search on NTSC. There are more than 512 dots on a TV screen.
The way the picture is displayed has nothing to do with the "hypnotic state." People sit in front of the television TO BE ENTERTAINED! They conciously settle into a very relaxed state -- that's why they sat in front of the television in the first place!
When a commercial comes, I hit the skip button on my Tivo remote. Now that FOX has started playing commercials during the shows (in the corner of the screen) I don't even watch the Simpsons anymore. Advertisements are not as effective as you think they are, especially to those of us that effectively boycott those companies that have even mildly intrusive or annoying marketing strategies.
I remember when I took those Psychology classes in college. Repeat after me: "Correlational study."
Ouch! I agree that email needs to be free, but can you really claim victory over banner ads???
They realized banner ads weren't working, so they used pop-ups. Now they realize pop-ups aren't working, so they're using those really annoying over-the-top-of-whatever-I-want-to-read animations! Oh, and banners haven't gone away. Every site from slashdot to CNN is still using them.
Everything we do to halt spam is just making things worse. It was obvious to me that bayesian filtering would make things worse. Now spams contain one line of text and 50 lines of senseless crap, using up more of my bandwidth. Any "authentication" technique that is implemented will also increase bandwidth, simply because the spammers will find ways around it, and then we're all stuck still opening several more connections per email in order to "authenticate" our spam.
Additionally, there will always be uninformed and just plain stupid people in the world. It's a fundamental law of economics that money is taken from those who can't make good decisions and given to those that know how to take advantage of them. No amount of "education" is going to work.
Either we need to think of a really good technological solution, or we just need to hope that spamming reaches critical mass soon (that there are enough spammers such that competition between them becomes too costly and doesn't pay well enough).
I could have sworn I saw a video game with very similar technology in the Indianapolis Circle Center Mall about 10 years ago. It was a stupid video game...the only reason anyone played it was because of the 3D effect.
If I remember correctly, it was encased in a dome so you could only see it from the front (160 degrees or so) or from the top. It wasn't 360 degrees viewable, but probably didn't need to be.
Bruce Schneier, quoted from the Feb 15, 2003 Crypto-Gram:
Last year I had a conversation with an engineer involved with security for the Bluetooth wireless protocol. I told him that Bluetooth has only privacy and not per-packet authentication. He responded with the prototypical lame responses: 1) pseudorandom frequency hopping makes it "nearly impossible" for an attacker to get in, and 2) the range is only 8 feet, so the attacks are naturally limited.
I tried to argue the point, but eventually gave up. Then I said something like: "I can hardly wait for Bluetooth to become universal, because I really want a wireless keyboard and mouse with the "base station" built into my computer." He said: "Yes, but you really probably don't want to use Bluetooth for that, because then somebody could stuff keystrokes or mouse clicks into your system." I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Talk about not getting it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. It's "lose" (almost always spelled "loose").
auto-ip
Automatically assign an address on the 169.254.0.0/16 network if no DHCP server is found. Continue making DHCP requests every 2-4 minutes until DHCP server does respond...
No thanks.
I like to watch the videos of brainwashed CEO's talking about how they would never trust their business to "a bunch of freeware".
People should stop buying these crappy feature-loaded phones. Instead, start demanding that the few useful features be good. So your phone has facial recognition but can't make a 5 minute call without cutting you off?
Slashdot is not a pro-American forum. If you were paying attention, you would realize that America is not criticizing the rest of the world -- the rest of the world is criticizing the Chinese government.
I wanted to mod you down, but I don't currently have any mod points. Sorry.
Then they will know what the compiler can and can't optimize and will know what to put their effort into.
One time I was talking to a guy who was writing a program in assembly and asked why he wasn't using a higher level language. He told me it wouldn't be fast enough. So I asked him if he does strength reduction and loop invariant removal by himself. His reply: "Huh?" If he doesn't appear to understand such simple common compiler optimizations, I'm almost positive the compiler would have done a better job than him. I didn't tell him that, though.
Schneier wrote about this in his blog.
That's what I think of when I hear Micros~1 say, "but we've only patched 15 vulnerabilities!"
I like the company I work for, but unfortunately, I may need to go someplace else if I want my career (and salary) to advance...
It's like the "brains in a vat" argument. Asking "am I a brain in a vat?" is futile because there is no connection between ourselves and that "outer reality" which would allow us to meaningfully say "I am a brain in a vat." If you could meaningfully say it, then you wouldn't be a brain in a vat!
In our case, we can't question reason, because in order to do so, we would need to use reason. You can't use Godel's incompleteness theorem to state that we don't know anything because it becomes meaningless by the time you reach the end of the assertion. Hence the banal, "Do you know that for sure?" question that you've already received from a fellow slashdotter. You have a priori knowledge. Your daily thoughts and actions prove it. Saying, "but I don't REALLY know anything FOR SURE" is absolutely meaningless.
You should read some of Hilary Putnam's stuff.
No, screw that. As long as you're being idealistic, they should forget the "DO NOT SPAM" list altogether. They should have a "DO SPAM" list, so people opt-in instead of opt-out. Then you can publish the list of addresses without even hashing them.
Bin Laden was attempting to influence the election. He was trying to get Bush out of office because he perceives Kerry as less of a threat to him. I didn't vote for Bush, but if Bin Laden hates him, he must be doing something right.
Bin Ladin is going to attempt to take credit for anything that happens because it's good for his recruitment. Whether or not what's happening was his intention is certainly questionable. The fact that he's gloating and already counting his chickens makes his statements very suspect.
Most people (especially on Slashdot) don't find Macs "more geeky."
Most people learn as teenagers that most gadgets are relatively useless. They don't increase productivity or make living easier. At work I design and write software for some of the "cool" gadgets you're thinking of, but unless you think of them as a status symbol (you obviously do) there are few reasons to own them.
Unless you live in Luxembourg, the average citizen of your country is certainly not as rich as the average citizen of the USA. This is in spite of the constant and heavy influx of poor immigrants and the current perceived poor performance of the US economy.
If you get modded down, it doesn't mean that what you say is true. It's understandable -- lots of people like to feel like victims.
One of my cars is a 1981. People are very surprised when they see that it has power windows, door locks, mirrors, etc., and that it has A/C. One person who rode in my car was surprised that it had seat belts!! People think that the world didn't have that kind of technology 25 years ago. I'm only 28 years old, but I'm old enough to know that the auto industry has been ripping people off for at least that long.
This is certainly not the same thing at the ol' 640-kB cliche. There are certain physical limits that are being approached here. Maybe you don't understand just how big 2^128 is.
"Don't blame me, *I* voted for Kodos!" -- Homer Simpson
If you were to take a picture and compress it with PNG, and then take a picture and compress it with JPG, you would almost always get a MUCH smaller image with JPG (we're talking orders of magnitude). And, putting them side by side, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference with 99.99% of them. This is why cameras use JPG.
Just because JPG is lossless doesn't mean it's inferior. Get over it. PNG is good for some stuff, JPG is better for other things. I'm amazed at the number of professional graphics designers that can't grasp this high-school level understanding of compression and color science.
In addition, I have two accounts that I use regularly -- one that I give to everyone (web registration forms, etc) where I don't care about spam, and another one that is personal and I only give to close friends. Guess which one gets more spam? That's right. My personal account gets about 150 per day. My "don't care" account gets like 6 per day. They have both been active for many years.
Movie theaters don't display the picture the same way a CRT does, and yet I'd assume people are just as "doped up" in a theater (if not more so) as they are watching TV. By the way, do a Google search on NTSC. There are more than 512 dots on a TV screen.
The way the picture is displayed has nothing to do with the "hypnotic state." People sit in front of the television TO BE ENTERTAINED! They conciously settle into a very relaxed state -- that's why they sat in front of the television in the first place!
When a commercial comes, I hit the skip button on my Tivo remote. Now that FOX has started playing commercials during the shows (in the corner of the screen) I don't even watch the Simpsons anymore. Advertisements are not as effective as you think they are, especially to those of us that effectively boycott those companies that have even mildly intrusive or annoying marketing strategies.
I remember when I took those Psychology classes in college. Repeat after me: "Correlational study."
They realized banner ads weren't working, so they used pop-ups. Now they realize pop-ups aren't working, so they're using those really annoying over-the-top-of-whatever-I-want-to-read animations! Oh, and banners haven't gone away. Every site from slashdot to CNN is still using them.
Everything we do to halt spam is just making things worse. It was obvious to me that bayesian filtering would make things worse. Now spams contain one line of text and 50 lines of senseless crap, using up more of my bandwidth. Any "authentication" technique that is implemented will also increase bandwidth, simply because the spammers will find ways around it, and then we're all stuck still opening several more connections per email in order to "authenticate" our spam.
Additionally, there will always be uninformed and just plain stupid people in the world. It's a fundamental law of economics that money is taken from those who can't make good decisions and given to those that know how to take advantage of them. No amount of "education" is going to work.
Either we need to think of a really good technological solution, or we just need to hope that spamming reaches critical mass soon (that there are enough spammers such that competition between them becomes too costly and doesn't pay well enough).
If I remember correctly, it was encased in a dome so you could only see it from the front (160 degrees or so) or from the top. It wasn't 360 degrees viewable, but probably didn't need to be.
The magic 8-ball says: "Outlook not so good"
Bart: Wow, it does work!
``Marge, don't discourage the boy. Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals!... except the weasel.''
---------
Last year I had a conversation with an engineer involved with security for the Bluetooth wireless protocol. I told him that Bluetooth has only privacy and not per-packet authentication. He responded with the prototypical lame responses: 1) pseudorandom frequency hopping makes it "nearly impossible" for an attacker to get in, and 2) the range is only 8 feet, so the attacks are naturally limited.
I tried to argue the point, but eventually gave up. Then I said something like: "I can hardly wait for Bluetooth to become universal, because I really want a wireless keyboard and mouse with the "base station" built into my computer." He said: "Yes, but you really probably don't want to use Bluetooth for that, because then somebody could stuff keystrokes or mouse clicks into your system." I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Talk about not getting it.
I think that says a lot about Bluetooth security.