"The ideal tool in my mind should be something that is independent of any application, browser, or computer; something that is easily carried, but which if lost poses no risk of compromise. What does the Slashdot crowd like in password tools?"
It sounds like you're describing this: Mandylion Password Manager. ThinkGeek's out of stock at the moment, but you can probably find one elsewhere.
Less convenient than some options since you can't copy & paste. On the other hand, more secure since the list of passwords never gets to the PC's RAM.
... therefore [sic] stops me from hitting "view source"--changing my displayed bill from $125 to $25, saving the html, hitting print, and cutting them a check for $25?
Next week when they complain, I underpaid--I send them a copy of my perfectly legitimate bill for $25, and tell them that *they* have a computer error. Since I'm the only one with a paper trail, it's pretty much their error by definition. Every one of their backups says $125? Okay--but I'm still the only person with a legitimate paper trail...
Sorry--paper is out there for a reason.
Tip: To make sense out of the above comment, simply print it. Once printed on paper it's automatically true! Paper's pretty magical that way.
Not for your own benefit, but for others who may have been exposed and are more susceptible. The guys at Penny Arcade are making a list of flights which had passengers confirmed by testing to be contagious with swine flu. Having this information available could help others.
Note: The list has grown substantially over the past few days as people get tested.
I really doubt an offering from Google is ready for the government scene. They may be perfect for home consumer markets, which is fine, but not government or 'secure' corporate.
You're right! Anyone who needs real corporate or government-level security uses Microsoft. Oh wait...
The larger role played by a Palantir was the one used by Saruman. He was chief among the wizards sent to oppose Sauron and the forces of evil, but the knowledge granted by the stone corrupted him such that he turned against his order and sought power for himself.
Rather than making me think that all humans are mutants, this made me think: Wow, over a runtime of 204 years, the DNA copying process has an accuracy of 99.99988%, or an error rate of only 0.00012%.
I think we'll be hard-pressed to replicate that level of awesomeness in computers anytime soon.
Unfortunately, nobody can win an election on the basis of "50 years from now my opponent's policies would cause half of our island to sink!". However, it's easy for someone to say "That guy wants to make you pay twice as much for electricity!". Cue outrage.
True or not, the consequences of global warming are inconceivable to most people. I think we'll need to see some more directly disastrous results before people really base day-to-day decisions on such considerations.
I was quite surprised at how mild this was. This is nothing close to the sweeping reforms often proposed on Slashdot; rather it seems aimed at ensuring that universities and newsrooms can't be sued for fair use. The AFM has got a lot of nerve calling the contents of that flyer disgusting.
They say it's approximately twice the size of Texas. Texas is 691,030 square kilometers. So twice the size of Texas is 1.4 million square kilometers. The world's oceans cover approximately 361 million square kilometers. So an area TWICE THE SIZE OF TEXAS (oh noes! Panic!) is 1/3rd of a percentage point of the surface area of all the world's oceans.
The world population is approximately 6.71 billion. A third of a percentage point of that is 25.68 million. The population of Texas is only 24.33 million. Ergo by your reasoning, if everyone in Texas dies, there's no need to worry.
Protip: by most standards, an event of that magnitude would be considered cataclysmic.
It's more complicated when the data may be the result of collaborative effort. If two users have a detailed conversation, then one wants all data associated with them deleted, what happens when the other user complains?
Now in that case it still seems fairly clear that the privacy concern should come first, but as we get increasingly collaborative works, where is the line drawn? Let's say someone makes a Facebook app that lets multiple users create works of art together, or literature. There is another side to this issue.
If any official claims this is to stop terrorist attacks, they're lying. This type of tech is to break the "mutually" part out of MAD. Once the US can confidently stop ICBMs 100% of the time with a mass-produced set of these things, it need not worry any longer about who it can threaten.
I suppose this only makes sense. After all, we know that an address isn't personal information - it identifies a house, not a person. Neither is a phone number, which identifies a phone. License plate numbers identify a car. In fact, one could even argue that SSN/SIN numbers identify a card or record in a government database instead of a person. Privacy solved! There is no personal information.
Actually it looks like they're trying to redirect spending away from out-of-state online stores and towards local retail shops. If online stores don't have a competitive advantage in prices due to no tax, they're hoping it will result in greater local shopping. Therefore more local stores stay open, more local jobs, etc etc.
"Methodical and voracious, these hackers wanted all the files they could find, and they were getting them by penetrating secure computer networks at the country's most sensitive military bases, defense contractors and aerospace companies."
Who wants to take bets that they're using the type of 'hacking' methods as that guy searching for evidence of UFOs in the story a while back? Logging into systems without passwords, etc. isn't 'hacking' (or cracking, if you prefer) into 'secure' systems.
The question here is one of morality, not whether the science is valid or not. Surely you would not say that anything is moral in science, so how do you plan on objectively defining morality? The only method that is really practical in a democratic country is to define it based on majority opinion, rightly or wrongly, which is (in theory at least) the same way the legal system is set up. Whether you like it or not, it seems that the majority, or at least their elected representatives, view this particular type of research as an immoral thing.
Also, since it is an issue of morality, arguments based upon the merits of the science are mostly irrelevant. The lack of federal funding isn't due to the politicians (and public) not understanding what the benefits could be, but because they do understand that certain prerequisites exist which they are unwilling to accept.
"a new Sidebar which displays RSS feeds, a Gmail inbox, news, scratch pad and more. Plug-ins for the new Sidebar are also available including a to-do list, clock, and more. As one blogger pointed out this morning...the release of Google Desktop 2.0 is beginning to take shape as a browser in itself as the need for a Firefox or IE is almost eliminated."
Because as we all know, the only things browsers are used for are a clock, todo list, scratch pad, and viewing various parts of the Google website.
Google could very well release its own browser, either by branding Mozilla/Firefox or writing its own, but this isn't it.
"According to CacheLogic survey, 61.44% of the peer-to-peer traffic nowadays is video, with audio taking distant second place, representing 11.34% of global traffic."
If we assume that the average audio file is 5MB, which is probably too large, then there would only be a file-to-file equivalence if the average video file was less than 30MB, which is very small. You can't fit a single half-hour episode of some anime show into 30MB unless you have ridiculously poor quality. So it's reasonable to conclude that a much greater number of audio files are being traded, and video files use more bandwidth because video files are bigger, rather than because video files are more popular than audio files. An actual ratio would require data on the size of the average traded video file.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, tonsils and the appendix are useless. Since we've figured everything out, we could design much better humans! Oh wait...
"The ideal tool in my mind should be something that is independent of any application, browser, or computer; something that is easily carried, but which if lost poses no risk of compromise. What does the Slashdot crowd like in password tools?"
It sounds like you're describing this: Mandylion Password Manager. ThinkGeek's out of stock at the moment, but you can probably find one elsewhere.
Less convenient than some options since you can't copy & paste. On the other hand, more secure since the list of passwords never gets to the PC's RAM.
... therefore [sic] stops me from hitting "view source"--changing my displayed bill from $125 to $25, saving the html, hitting print, and cutting them a check for $25?
Next week when they complain, I underpaid--I send them a copy of my perfectly legitimate bill for $25, and tell them that *they* have a computer error. Since I'm the only one with a paper trail, it's pretty much their error by definition. Every one of their backups says $125? Okay--but I'm still the only person with a legitimate paper trail...
Sorry--paper is out there for a reason.
Tip: To make sense out of the above comment, simply print it. Once printed on paper it's automatically true! Paper's pretty magical that way.
Not for your own benefit, but for others who may have been exposed and are more susceptible. The guys at Penny Arcade are making a list of flights which had passengers confirmed by testing to be contagious with swine flu. Having this information available could help others.
Note: The list has grown substantially over the past few days as people get tested.
I really doubt an offering from Google is ready for the government scene. They may be perfect for home consumer markets, which is fine, but not government or 'secure' corporate.
You're right! Anyone who needs real corporate or government-level security uses Microsoft. Oh wait...
The larger role played by a Palantir was the one used by Saruman. He was chief among the wizards sent to oppose Sauron and the forces of evil, but the knowledge granted by the stone corrupted him such that he turned against his order and sought power for himself.
Even more appropriate.
Rather than making me think that all humans are mutants, this made me think: Wow, over a runtime of 204 years, the DNA copying process has an accuracy of 99.99988%, or an error rate of only 0.00012%.
I think we'll be hard-pressed to replicate that level of awesomeness in computers anytime soon.
What competition?
Unfortunately, nobody can win an election on the basis of "50 years from now my opponent's policies would cause half of our island to sink!". However, it's easy for someone to say "That guy wants to make you pay twice as much for electricity!". Cue outrage.
True or not, the consequences of global warming are inconceivable to most people. I think we'll need to see some more directly disastrous results before people really base day-to-day decisions on such considerations.
I was quite surprised at how mild this was. This is nothing close to the sweeping reforms often proposed on Slashdot; rather it seems aimed at ensuring that universities and newsrooms can't be sued for fair use. The AFM has got a lot of nerve calling the contents of that flyer disgusting.
They say it's approximately twice the size of Texas. Texas is 691,030 square kilometers. So twice the size of Texas is 1.4 million square kilometers. The world's oceans cover approximately 361 million square kilometers. So an area TWICE THE SIZE OF TEXAS (oh noes! Panic!) is 1/3rd of a percentage point of the surface area of all the world's oceans.
The world population is approximately 6.71 billion. A third of a percentage point of that is 25.68 million. The population of Texas is only 24.33 million. Ergo by your reasoning, if everyone in Texas dies, there's no need to worry.
Protip: by most standards, an event of that magnitude would be considered cataclysmic.
It's more complicated when the data may be the result of collaborative effort. If two users have a detailed conversation, then one wants all data associated with them deleted, what happens when the other user complains?
Now in that case it still seems fairly clear that the privacy concern should come first, but as we get increasingly collaborative works, where is the line drawn? Let's say someone makes a Facebook app that lets multiple users create works of art together, or literature. There is another side to this issue.
If any official claims this is to stop terrorist attacks, they're lying. This type of tech is to break the "mutually" part out of MAD. Once the US can confidently stop ICBMs 100% of the time with a mass-produced set of these things, it need not worry any longer about who it can threaten.
I suppose this only makes sense. After all, we know that an address isn't personal information - it identifies a house, not a person. Neither is a phone number, which identifies a phone. License plate numbers identify a car. In fact, one could even argue that SSN/SIN numbers identify a card or record in a government database instead of a person. Privacy solved! There is no personal information.
All your cheeseburgers are belong to us.
Presumably he's the reader the editors were referring to...
No; they won't be that well hidden.
Dr. Mario!
Actually it looks like they're trying to redirect spending away from out-of-state online stores and towards local retail shops. If online stores don't have a competitive advantage in prices due to no tax, they're hoping it will result in greater local shopping. Therefore more local stores stay open, more local jobs, etc etc.
Basically another form of protectionism.
Mrs. Windows left Mr. Windows for Linux. That's why Linux works with Mrs. X-Windows.
"Methodical and voracious, these hackers wanted all the files they could find, and they were getting them by penetrating secure computer networks at the country's most sensitive military bases, defense contractors and aerospace companies."
Who wants to take bets that they're using the type of 'hacking' methods as that guy searching for evidence of UFOs in the story a while back? Logging into systems without passwords, etc. isn't 'hacking' (or cracking, if you prefer) into 'secure' systems.
The question here is one of morality, not whether the science is valid or not. Surely you would not say that anything is moral in science, so how do you plan on objectively defining morality? The only method that is really practical in a democratic country is to define it based on majority opinion, rightly or wrongly, which is (in theory at least) the same way the legal system is set up. Whether you like it or not, it seems that the majority, or at least their elected representatives, view this particular type of research as an immoral thing.
Also, since it is an issue of morality, arguments based upon the merits of the science are mostly irrelevant. The lack of federal funding isn't due to the politicians (and public) not understanding what the benefits could be, but because they do understand that certain prerequisites exist which they are unwilling to accept.
"a new Sidebar which displays RSS feeds, a Gmail inbox, news, scratch pad and more. Plug-ins for the new Sidebar are also available including a to-do list, clock, and more. As one blogger pointed out this morning...the release of Google Desktop 2.0 is beginning to take shape as a browser in itself as the need for a Firefox or IE is almost eliminated."
Because as we all know, the only things browsers are used for are a clock, todo list, scratch pad, and viewing various parts of the Google website.
Google could very well release its own browser, either by branding Mozilla/Firefox or writing its own, but this isn't it.
"According to CacheLogic survey, 61.44% of the peer-to-peer traffic nowadays is video, with audio taking distant second place, representing 11.34% of global traffic."
If we assume that the average audio file is 5MB, which is probably too large, then there would only be a file-to-file equivalence if the average video file was less than 30MB, which is very small. You can't fit a single half-hour episode of some anime show into 30MB unless you have ridiculously poor quality. So it's reasonable to conclude that a much greater number of audio files are being traded, and video files use more bandwidth because video files are bigger, rather than because video files are more popular than audio files. An actual ratio would require data on the size of the average traded video file.
Wow, it sounds like CNet must have pretty poor editorial standards to post another article with an identical subject so soon after their last one.