Is this really about privacy or is it about the money that will be lost by registrars and third parties that offer anonymous solutions and charge for it?
If you have media that you know won't last over 30 years, just copy it onto new media at the 20-25 year point.
The problem with this is that you have to know what data you have and you have to remember to convert it every so often. There is a lot of knowledge out there that is not necessarily cataloged or managed. Such information can be "forgotten" or "lost" for decades. Think of stories you hear about some guy who died and when his stuff was gone through, they found some book or important papers that no one had seen for 50 years. Think of cases where old records are "found" years after they were misfiled.
Data that is stored on short term storage must to be cataloged and managed or it will be lost. There is a risk that data we don't think is valuable enough today won't be put on permanent enough media, or will be put on short-term media without a proper management plan. Who is to say that that data might not be more valuable in the future?
You just need a really good stereo and some control logic that sends engine sounds through your stereo when you should be idling. A subwoofer so you can feel it as well is a must.
It is bad style to exchange favour since this is giving the professionals a hard time to compete when they have to fully pay the VAX.
I hope by now you have fully paid for your VAX. The DEC guys were good with thier support contracts, but not that good. Maybe its time to remove it from the books.
What might be cool about this is for this to work we would have to have the technology to reliably detect a face under any lighting and background conditions. The last time I looked we were not there. Are we now? If so that is pretty cool.
It may not be an X86-class CPU, but how long until it sits on the motherboard right next to an X86-class CPU. You don't need to protect the entire processor in order to have DRM and other things that restrict you from computing; you only need to have a secure bucket that can hold keys and do a minimal amount of processing to verify the keys. (Think smart cards.)
Apologies for posting both the pre and post spell check version. I tried to cut and paste and ended up forgetting the cut. Guilty as charged for not previewing.
I really wish such articles would give us the whole story. What is not really being made clear is if all the airplane incidents were done with cheap inexpensive laser pointers, or more expensive, more powerfull lasers.
If the cheapo pointers that you can buy at Target for a few dollars are a risk then this really is a story. If you have spend several hundred dollars and buy from some sort of industrial supplier then it is not near as much of a story. I really wish such articles would give us the whole story. What is not really being made clear is if all the airplane incidents were done with cheap inexpensive laser pointers, or more expensive, more powerful lasers.
If the cheapo pointers that you can buy at Target for a few dollars are a risk then this really is a story. If you have to spend several hundred dollars and buy from some sort of industrial supplier then it is not near as much of a story.
While I share the common concerns dealing with potential privacy, security, availability, and monopoly issues as most other posters there is a problem with passport that actually causes me more trouble then all of these on a regular basis.
That problem is that passport assumes that I only have one identity.
I have multiple, legitimate identities when I operate on the web - Especially when I operate on Microsoft's own sites.
I work for a consulting firm which is a Microsoft partner. When I am using the web I may be using it as myself (individually); as an employee of the firm; or as a representative of one of our customers.
If I need to register a support issue, download something from MSDN Downloads, or interact with Microsoft in any other way, I always have to be extra careful which passport I am currently using or logged into. If I am not careful I may incorrectly "charge" a download to the wrong party.
The passport interface tries to keep your login "sticky" and does not readily indicate who you are logged in as. It is inconvenient to switch identities and you are never alerted when you bring up a web page that your Passport was just transmitted.
If the Passport client would have popped up a dialog (or asked you in the interface) every time your identity was about to be sent something like "A web site is requesting your identity and information, which identity do you wish to send?", the whole thing would have been a lot more usable for me.
The problem with a lot of this logic is that it assumes that there is only one "application" that uses the database.
In larger systems you have a database that holds your data and multiple applications that operate on it.
The whole idea around relational databases is that all your data and associated relations are put together in one logical model.
Some applications may be web based, some may be thick client, and some may be some other architecture. If you put your business rules at a stored procedure level, you can ensure that these rules are enforced without regard to which application is accessing it.
If you put your application logic on your web server or on your middle tier transaction server, any application that connects directly to the database is going to bypass those business rules.
If you actually care about business rules and security rules being enforced, you will put them into your database.
As has been mentioned, the downside to this is that it will be expensive if you want to change database platforms. Choose wisely. Note that if you are not going to make use of the advanced query functions and the ability to encode business logic and security within the confines of your database, you might as well purchase a less expensive one.
This only makes a difference if you NEVER use a credit card
Or you can get a credit card that has the same fake name as you used on on your discount card. I did this and they still thank me for shopping and use the fake name whether I pay via cash or credit card. Works like a champ.
Output a packet via UDP to a particular IP address and port number.
This is the problem. There are fewer and fewer individuals out there who have a static (particular) IP addresses. Ownership and control of static addresses is moving from individuals to companies. When no individual has a static address then you have to rely on some company somewhere to host the static IP address and to "route" your connection (VOIP call, etc.) for you. When this happens you have given control of cost, content, and privacy to the company with the static address. This is a bad thing.
I belive that they are writing the support apps (Explorer, IE, Management utils, etc.) in.NET and pushing developers to develop in.NET. Under the covers.NET still calls Win32. I don't think this is scheduled to change in the Longhorn timeframe.
Support is the issue here. If you read the article you will see:
But his delight turned to anger when he contacted NetApp to purchase a maintenance agreement for the used system.
The issue is that the second buyer was trying to get support for a product he did not buy directly from the manufacturer. If the second buyer just wanted to use the product, nothing was stopping him.
Your rebuttal and declaration that my argument is a "Straw Man" is an attempt to distract the audience from the fact that you didn't appear to RTFA. In addition, because of the way you responded to my comment, by calling me a "foolish debater" without knowing me raises significantly the possibility that you are a pompous ass.
You are never bound by any contract that you have not chosen to be bound by.
Doesn't this apply to the company as well? When you buy used used hardware, why should the company have their contract that they made with the original purchaser be enforced with you, the purchaser? They did not make the contract with you (the secondary buyer) and are not bound by it.
If I have a contract to support you, when I made that contract I took into account how much it would cost to support you when I set the pricing. It might cost me a lot more to support the person you sell my software to (they might be idiots.) Why should I be forced to take on a future (cost) liability that I have no control over?
But if they have access to your hard drive, time to unscrew it, secure it, etc - why not take the entire machine?
If you look at the diagram on the website you will see a controller board that sits between the motherboard and the hard drive. Plugged into the controller board is USB dongle thing which holds your decryption key. Assuming the encryption is sound and assuming that you take the dongle with you when you leave your computer unattended, it is a pretty secure arrangement.
It's a long process, need to start now
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The question is not do we need higher voltage systems in cars today; it is Will we need higher voltage systems in cars ten years from now? Cars are not like computers where a design change can be on retail shelves in a matter of months. Simple design changes in cars take several years before they show up in the dealer's lot.
If we, as a vehicular society, are going to want improvements in the stuff we can do with electricity in our cars over the next 10 years (very likely), we need to start working on changing the platform with which to do this now.
It appears that this is happening and this is a good thing.
Block lists or black lists (BLs) simply list the addresses of "known" spammers or ISPs that harbor spammers. The definition of "known" varies greatly
from BL to BL. Likewise the policies and procedures that maintainers of BLs
follow for adding and removing addresses from the lists vary widely. They can by
anywhere from the mood of the owner, to a formal, published set of events and
tests.
I firmly believe that anyone has the right to publish a list of who they
believe are spammers.
What the article and most of the discussion fail to look at
is the other side of the mail connection.
No one is preventing anyone
from sending mail. What is happening is system administrators are choosing
to follow the information that is published in BLs and then acting on
that choice. The result is that some systems (individual computers, companies,
or entire ISPs) will not receive mail that is on a BL. Again mail is not
being prevented from being sent, it is prevented from being received.
Control
over this is determined by who you receive your mail form, not by who is
publishing the BL or who is sending the mail.
The discussion should not be
about if BLs are good or bad, it should be asking the questions like:
Are ISPs being careful enough about which BLs they act upon?
Do the policies of the BL maintainer align with the service agreement
between the ISP and the end customer?
Do ISPs need to disclose to their customers which BLs they use?
Should ISPs allow customer to choose which, if any, BLs their individual
mail is filtered by?
You should substitute your company or organizations mail administrator for
ISP above if your organization is maintaining its own mail servers.
If you are a mail system administrator your job is to choose a set of BLs
that have policies that agree with your users (customers) needs and provide an
appropriate balance between filtering and collateral damage. If you are an end
user, your job is to patronize a service provider that filters appropriately for
your needs. That is what you are paying the service provider to do for you;
provide service.
I just knew somebody was going to try to leverge this into an argument against much needed mental health funding in Oregon.
It's not that I am against mental health care in Oregon. I am against this particular method of funding it.
For those folks not in Oregon or not familiar with the history there was a state-wide measure last January that would have raised taxes state-wide to cover the costs of among other things mental health. This measure failed. Upon looking at how the vote went county by county, it was discovered that the measure passed in Multonomah county. The current measure asks only the people in Multnomah county if they want to support only the people in Multnomah county via a similar tax.
This is a state-wide problem and needs to be viewed and addressed state-wide.
Oregon is in crisis. Schools are falling apart. We are shortening school years and laying off teachers. We don't have enough police and other public services. There is a need for mental health care.
The economy here is horrible. Individual citizens are having to make due with less money and be personally more efficient with their spending. There is an attitude that government needs to do the same. We hear stories about how there is not enough money right along with stories about how money is wasted.
While the truth may be that Oregon is not wasting any money and desperately needs more cash to fund the services that people need, the public perception is that Oregon would have enough money if it spent it properly.
While the amount of money that will be dedicated to Klingon will probably be in proportion to the actual cost of the Klingon problem (minimal), the whole concept fuels the fire and the belief the Oregon collects enough money in the form of taxes and just needs to spend it better.
No wonder we are having budget problems here in Oregon.
Currently on the ballot is a measure that will add percent and quarter income tax to cover schools, health care (like speaking Klingon), and public safetly. This ballot measure covers only residents of Multnomah County (same place that has the job opening.)
Maybe instead of increasing our income tax to pay for schools and basic services, we should stop paying for crap like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this really about privacy or is it about the money that will be lost by registrars and third parties that offer anonymous solutions and charge for it?
The problem with this is that you have to know what data you have and you have to remember to convert it every so often. There is a lot of knowledge out there that is not necessarily cataloged or managed. Such information can be "forgotten" or "lost" for decades. Think of stories you hear about some guy who died and when his stuff was gone through, they found some book or important papers that no one had seen for 50 years. Think of cases where old records are "found" years after they were misfiled.
Data that is stored on short term storage must to be cataloged and managed or it will be lost. There is a risk that data we don't think is valuable enough today won't be put on permanent enough media, or will be put on short-term media without a proper management plan. Who is to say that that data might not be more valuable in the future?
You just need a really good stereo and some control logic that sends engine sounds through your stereo when you should be idling. A subwoofer so you can feel it as well is a must.
I hope by now you have fully paid for your VAX. The DEC guys were good with thier support contracts, but not that good. Maybe its time to remove it from the books.
What might be cool about this is for this to work we would have to have the technology to reliably detect a face under any lighting and background conditions. The last time I looked we were not there. Are we now? If so that is pretty cool.
It may not be an X86-class CPU, but how long until it sits on the motherboard right next to an X86-class CPU. You don't need to protect the entire processor in order to have DRM and other things that restrict you from computing; you only need to have a secure bucket that can hold keys and do a minimal amount of processing to verify the keys. (Think smart cards.)
Apologies for posting both the pre and post spell check version. I tried to cut and paste and ended up forgetting the cut. Guilty as charged for not previewing.
If the cheapo pointers that you can buy at Target for a few dollars are a risk then this really is a story. If you have spend several hundred dollars and buy from some sort of industrial supplier then it is not near as much of a story. I really wish such articles would give us the whole story. What is not really being made clear is if all the airplane incidents were done with cheap inexpensive laser pointers, or more expensive, more powerful lasers.
If the cheapo pointers that you can buy at Target for a few dollars are a risk then this really is a story. If you have to spend several hundred dollars and buy from some sort of industrial supplier then it is not near as much of a story.
That problem is that passport assumes that I only have one identity. I have multiple, legitimate identities when I operate on the web - Especially when I operate on Microsoft's own sites.
I work for a consulting firm which is a Microsoft partner. When I am using the web I may be using it as myself (individually); as an employee of the firm; or as a representative of one of our customers. If I need to register a support issue, download something from MSDN Downloads, or interact with Microsoft in any other way, I always have to be extra careful which passport I am currently using or logged into. If I am not careful I may incorrectly "charge" a download to the wrong party.
The passport interface tries to keep your login "sticky" and does not readily indicate who you are logged in as. It is inconvenient to switch identities and you are never alerted when you bring up a web page that your Passport was just transmitted.
If the Passport client would have popped up a dialog (or asked you in the interface) every time your identity was about to be sent something like "A web site is requesting your identity and information, which identity do you wish to send?", the whole thing would have been a lot more usable for me.
There is also a tool and sdk called mpgedit that may get you close to where you want to be. http://www.mpgedit.org/mpgedit/
In larger systems you have a database that holds your data and multiple applications that operate on it. The whole idea around relational databases is that all your data and associated relations are put together in one logical model.
Some applications may be web based, some may be thick client, and some may be some other architecture. If you put your business rules at a stored procedure level, you can ensure that these rules are enforced without regard to which application is accessing it.
If you put your application logic on your web server or on your middle tier transaction server, any application that connects directly to the database is going to bypass those business rules. If you actually care about business rules and security rules being enforced, you will put them into your database.
As has been mentioned, the downside to this is that it will be expensive if you want to change database platforms. Choose wisely. Note that if you are not going to make use of the advanced query functions and the ability to encode business logic and security within the confines of your database, you might as well purchase a less expensive one.
Or you can get a credit card that has the same fake name as you used on on your discount card. I did this and they still thank me for shopping and use the fake name whether I pay via cash or credit card. Works like a champ.
Umm, since when was booting considered a root exploit?
Instead only try to realize the truth. There is no root.
Perhaps I should have been more specific. By static IP, I also meant Internet addressable or not NAT.
The issue is not one of name resolution, but rather one of the ability to connect to.
This is the problem. There are fewer and fewer individuals out there who have a static (particular) IP addresses. Ownership and control of static addresses is moving from individuals to companies. When no individual has a static address then you have to rely on some company somewhere to host the static IP address and to "route" your connection (VOIP call, etc.) for you. When this happens you have given control of cost, content, and privacy to the company with the static address. This is a bad thing.
Don't you mean:
1. Porn
2. Profit
?
I belive that they are writing the support apps (Explorer, IE, Management utils, etc.) in .NET and pushing developers to develop in .NET. Under the covers .NET still calls Win32. I don't think this is scheduled to change in the Longhorn timeframe.
But his delight turned to anger when he contacted NetApp to purchase a maintenance agreement for the used system.
The issue is that the second buyer was trying to get support for a product he did not buy directly from the manufacturer. If the second buyer just wanted to use the product, nothing was stopping him.
Your rebuttal and declaration that my argument is a "Straw Man" is an attempt to distract the audience from the fact that you didn't appear to RTFA. In addition, because of the way you responded to my comment, by calling me a "foolish debater" without knowing me raises significantly the possibility that you are a pompous ass.
Doesn't this apply to the company as well? When you buy used used hardware, why should the company have their contract that they made with the original purchaser be enforced with you, the purchaser? They did not make the contract with you (the secondary buyer) and are not bound by it.
If I have a contract to support you, when I made that contract I took into account how much it would cost to support you when I set the pricing. It might cost me a lot more to support the person you sell my software to (they might be idiots.) Why should I be forced to take on a future (cost) liability that I have no control over?
Or just figure out what internal jumper to add or remove to turn the blocked range back on.
But if they have access to your hard drive, time to unscrew it, secure it, etc - why not take the entire machine?
If you look at the diagram on the website you will see a controller board that sits between the motherboard and the hard drive. Plugged into the controller board is USB dongle thing which holds your decryption key. Assuming the encryption is sound and assuming that you take the dongle with you when you leave your computer unattended, it is a pretty secure arrangement.
If we, as a vehicular society, are going to want improvements in the stuff we can do with electricity in our cars over the next 10 years (very likely), we need to start working on changing the platform with which to do this now.
It appears that this is happening and this is a good thing.
I firmly believe that anyone has the right to publish a list of who they believe are spammers.
What the article and most of the discussion fail to look at is the other side of the mail connection.
No one is preventing anyone from sending mail. What is happening is system administrators are choosing to follow the information that is published in BLs and then acting on that choice. The result is that some systems (individual computers, companies, or entire ISPs) will not receive mail that is on a BL. Again mail is not being prevented from being sent, it is prevented from being received.
Control over this is determined by who you receive your mail form, not by who is publishing the BL or who is sending the mail.
The discussion should not be about if BLs are good or bad, it should be asking the questions like:
You should substitute your company or organizations mail administrator for ISP above if your organization is maintaining its own mail servers.
If you are a mail system administrator your job is to choose a set of BLs that have policies that agree with your users (customers) needs and provide an appropriate balance between filtering and collateral damage. If you are an end user, your job is to patronize a service provider that filters appropriately for your needs. That is what you are paying the service provider to do for you; provide service.
It's not that I am against mental health care in Oregon. I am against this particular method of funding it.
For those folks not in Oregon or not familiar with the history there was a state-wide measure last January that would have raised taxes state-wide to cover the costs of among other things mental health. This measure failed. Upon looking at how the vote went county by county, it was discovered that the measure passed in Multonomah county. The current measure asks only the people in Multnomah county if they want to support only the people in Multnomah county via a similar tax.
This is a state-wide problem and needs to be viewed and addressed state-wide.
Oregon is in crisis. Schools are falling apart. We are shortening school years and laying off teachers. We don't have enough police and other public services. There is a need for mental health care.
The economy here is horrible. Individual citizens are having to make due with less money and be personally more efficient with their spending. There is an attitude that government needs to do the same. We hear stories about how there is not enough money right along with stories about how money is wasted.
While the truth may be that Oregon is not wasting any money and desperately needs more cash to fund the services that people need, the public perception is that Oregon would have enough money if it spent it properly.
While the amount of money that will be dedicated to Klingon will probably be in proportion to the actual cost of the Klingon problem (minimal), the whole concept fuels the fire and the belief the Oregon collects enough money in the form of taxes and just needs to spend it better.
Currently on the ballot is a measure that will add percent and quarter income tax to cover schools, health care (like speaking Klingon), and public safetly. This ballot measure covers only residents of Multnomah County (same place that has the job opening.)
Maybe instead of increasing our income tax to pay for schools and basic services, we should stop paying for crap like this.