Encryption only works because brute forcing the scheme on current hardware is ridiculously time consuming. Encrypting with today's standards does not protect against future advances in computing power.
Don't a number of OSS window managers offer 3D cube styled virtual desktop environments already? Most of them map to the outside of a cube this one just maps to the inside.
You can also map to the inside of the cube if you want to.
I agree with your premise that it is not the government's job to protect people from themselves. However, with the respect to the extinct comment, that only benefits society if the individual in question is able to extinguish him or herself PRIOR to procreation. Once the genes are passed on however, the individual's life or death is much less relevant.
People can also grow tobacco, brew beer, and make wine. Neither activity is widespread. Besides, having raised a vegetable garden last summer for the first time in decades, I can say that growing stuff can be quite difficult. I suspect the government would do quite well on taxes.
You can't effectively legislate morality, as we demonstrated with Prohibition.
Is prohibition really a moral issue? I drank a glass of egg nog with rum tonight -- am I an immoral person? I can understand morals like "don't kill people and take their stuff", but how is drinking a glass of rum laced egg nog immoral? Or smoking a joint? Or doing heroin?
I know that egg nog has a lot of fat and sugar, so it isn't exactly a health drink. Smoking pot is bad for your lungs and doing heroin is bad for the heart, but as long as a person isn't driving around endangering other people after doing any of these, where is the actual immorality?
The illegality of cocaine and non-prescribed narcotic pain relievers sure made a big difference.
Perhaps, if the money wasted on the war on drugs went to treatment, things may not have been so bad. Even if treatment didn't work, there would certainly be more money in the household if the cocaine didn't have a smugglers surcharge.
As for abandonment, some people do that without drugs involved. It is not government's function to ensure everyone has a happy childhood.
Beavers are OK. It's shaved beavers that will cause you to run afoul of the law. And possibly incur the wrath of various PETA groups.
Well, in High School in rural Maine, I once ate beaver at school. I mean this in the most literal sense -- it was in a class called "Wildlife Biology". That may be worth a little more wrath than mere shaving.
You're talking about potentially eliminating human casualties in any war.
You completely missed the previous poster's point by failing to recognize the casualties on the other side as dead people. The point was that if there is no risk to "our boys", we would get into more wars because one incentive against warring ("risk to our boys"), is lost with robotic soldiers. If get involved in more wars, more people will die. Not US soldiers of course, but still more people.
Imagine the worldwide benefit if wars could be made MORE risky for the participants and especially the aggressors, and less risky for the populace. If war was more risky, we'd either have less of it or less collateral damage, and we could divert tremendous resources toward useful wealth and culture building tasks.
A much better way to do war would be to do it on board/video game, and when it is over, simply execute soldiers on each side according to the results. When not in a war, the soldiers could just sit around, drink beer, and get in fights with each other. We'd still have to feed them and such, but we could save mondo bucks on the equipment side and soldiers wouldn't be forced to pretend that they are useful members of society.
While I'm skeptical that this is net-energy-positive, it isn't a closed system. The trash represents an additional energy source. In fact, I think it's fair to say that if this system doesn't produce more electricity than it uses, it's a monumental waste of waste-energy. This makes sense only if they can produce more electricity (after subtracting electricity input) than a simple steam plant could from the same trash input. It really isn't all that helpful to spend more energy to produce less energy.
As long as oil exists in Iraq, we will be there. The Iraqi supply is too important in an energy dependent world where Americans cry like babies when gas hits $4.50.
Won't make a difference ultimately as the surplus energy of the last century fueled our wealth, and 100:1 power returns just aren't laying around anymore. But still, we'll be in Iraq till the oil runs dry.
What I was responding to was the comment that 70% of corporations pay no taxes. Which makes complete sense if a small business owner pays himself a salary and the rest of the "profit" as dividends.
Yes -- you pay yourself a salary and the rest is a dividend so that at the end of the year, the corp made nothing.
So if you actually _work_ (instead of just owning the corporation and letting other people run it while you play golf)
This is a common sentiment -- but really backward. What about during the time when you're trying to get your business going, making negative money every month, i.e., burning up all your savings on your dream. What about the point where it starts working but the minimum wage receptionist is literally making twice what you do? After taking all that risk, if you end up making it work -- you should have your reward taken away? What kind of incentive is that? Take out the incentive, and gambling your life savings to create a business (and jobs for the risk-averse), would be a stupid gamble. Upshot: fewer jobs.
That is the tax on TAXABLE income. By the time you take out the standard deduction and the personal deductions, that first $12k or $15k isn't taxed. So the burger-flipper-as-career person still isn't paying 10% on income.
Why do we think that jobs that are perfect for kids for extra spending money, should be turned into real careers? If we do that, where will the kids work for spending money?
Say you own a corporation -- not a mega-giant one, just your regular old mom&pop type. You work really hard, pay your workers, pay your expenses, and pay yourself everything that is left over. The government then taxes you on all of the profit you took out as income. If the government also taxed the "profit" the corp made before you paid yourself, you would be getting taxed TWICE on the same money. So for example if the corp profit was $100k, after corp taxes you'd have maybe $70k. Then after personal taxes and SS, maybe $50k, at which point you might just say "fuck it" -- 50% is too much tax -- fire everyone, and get a job from someone else in which you would earn more and be taxed less.
I'm entirely unsurprised that most corporations don't pay taxes -- most corporations aren't the size of IBM, MS, or Boeing.
The video on the TFA answers that. Apparently, the game was strung together with demos in the instruction book regarding bouncing balls or ballistic missiles. Higinbotham hadn't even considered it to be patentable before being asked because he felt it was an "oh so obvious" thing to do. Also, the gov't would own the patent.
What was interesting though was his "oh so obvious" thought -- 50 years later and we have companies patenting breathing, eating, and sleeping. I guess not all social values of the 50s were laughable.
On third thought, the keyboard doesn't transmit a character -- it sends a signal which software interprets as a character. So randomizing Xmodmap should work.
On second thought -- is it the actual key being pressed that creates the signal, or the sequence of bits for a particular character being transmitted that creates the signal? I'm guessing its the latter in which case randomizing the keyboard is only annoying.
How about using Xmodmap -- I could see a script that generates a random keyboard layout, a key-to-character chart would have to printed on the screen (which could be a problem I suppose), then you poke out your password, and then revert to the usual layout.
Well, in that case it would have been nice if they ran the attack with a complete running setup and tried to type at least 30 wpm. After watching the videos, I had the impression that the impression that the decoding software and/or hardware was simply not sensitive enough to capture real data -- this doesn't rule out future refinement, but it makes the current demo less impressive.
Slashdot Mirror
Encryption only works because brute forcing the scheme on current hardware is ridiculously time consuming. Encrypting with today's standards does not protect against future advances in computing power.
You can also map to the inside of the cube if you want to.
If lucky, probably just enough to power the trucks to go get it at 47 pounds of coffee grounds per gallon of fuel.
I agree with your premise that it is not the government's job to protect people from themselves. However, with the respect to the extinct comment, that only benefits society if the individual in question is able to extinguish him or herself PRIOR to procreation. Once the genes are passed on however, the individual's life or death is much less relevant.
People can also grow tobacco, brew beer, and make wine. Neither activity is widespread. Besides, having raised a vegetable garden last summer for the first time in decades, I can say that growing stuff can be quite difficult. I suspect the government would do quite well on taxes.
Is prohibition really a moral issue? I drank a glass of egg nog with rum tonight -- am I an immoral person? I can understand morals like "don't kill people and take their stuff", but how is drinking a glass of rum laced egg nog immoral? Or smoking a joint? Or doing heroin?
I know that egg nog has a lot of fat and sugar, so it isn't exactly a health drink. Smoking pot is bad for your lungs and doing heroin is bad for the heart, but as long as a person isn't driving around endangering other people after doing any of these, where is the actual immorality?
The illegality of cocaine and non-prescribed narcotic pain relievers sure made a big difference.
Perhaps, if the money wasted on the war on drugs went to treatment, things may not have been so bad. Even if treatment didn't work, there would certainly be more money in the household if the cocaine didn't have a smugglers surcharge.
As for abandonment, some people do that without drugs involved. It is not government's function to ensure everyone has a happy childhood.
Well, in High School in rural Maine, I once ate beaver at school. I mean this in the most literal sense -- it was in a class called "Wildlife Biology". That may be worth a little more wrath than mere shaving.
You completely missed the previous poster's point by failing to recognize the casualties on the other side as dead people. The point was that if there is no risk to "our boys", we would get into more wars because one incentive against warring ("risk to our boys"), is lost with robotic soldiers. If get involved in more wars, more people will die. Not US soldiers of course, but still more people.
Imagine the worldwide benefit if wars could be made MORE risky for the participants and especially the aggressors, and less risky for the populace. If war was more risky, we'd either have less of it or less collateral damage, and we could divert tremendous resources toward useful wealth and culture building tasks.
A much better way to do war would be to do it on board/video game, and when it is over, simply execute soldiers on each side according to the results. When not in a war, the soldiers could just sit around, drink beer, and get in fights with each other. We'd still have to feed them and such, but we could save mondo bucks on the equipment side and soldiers wouldn't be forced to pretend that they are useful members of society.
If nobody wants us there and the only way to win genocide -- why are we there? I mean, besides for the oil.
While I'm skeptical that this is net-energy-positive, it isn't a closed system. The trash represents an additional energy source. In fact, I think it's fair to say that if this system doesn't produce more electricity than it uses, it's a monumental waste of waste-energy. This makes sense only if they can produce more electricity (after subtracting electricity input) than a simple steam plant could from the same trash input. It really isn't all that helpful to spend more energy to produce less energy.
As long as oil exists in Iraq, we will be there. The Iraqi supply is too important in an energy dependent world where Americans cry like babies when gas hits $4.50. Won't make a difference ultimately as the surplus energy of the last century fueled our wealth, and 100:1 power returns just aren't laying around anymore. But still, we'll be in Iraq till the oil runs dry.
Excellent comment. A virtual +1 from me.
You must be a customer service manager.
yeah -- but getting the blister pack off the tin snips -- chicken and egg.
What I was responding to was the comment that 70% of corporations pay no taxes. Which makes complete sense if a small business owner pays himself a salary and the rest of the "profit" as dividends.
This is a common sentiment -- but really backward. What about during the time when you're trying to get your business going, making negative money every month, i.e., burning up all your savings on your dream. What about the point where it starts working but the minimum wage receptionist is literally making twice what you do? After taking all that risk, if you end up making it work -- you should have your reward taken away? What kind of incentive is that? Take out the incentive, and gambling your life savings to create a business (and jobs for the risk-averse), would be a stupid gamble. Upshot: fewer jobs.
That makes two votes for Barr.
That is the tax on TAXABLE income. By the time you take out the standard deduction and the personal deductions, that first $12k or $15k isn't taxed. So the burger-flipper-as-career person still isn't paying 10% on income.
Why do we think that jobs that are perfect for kids for extra spending money, should be turned into real careers? If we do that, where will the kids work for spending money?
Say you own a corporation -- not a mega-giant one, just your regular old mom&pop type. You work really hard, pay your workers, pay your expenses, and pay yourself everything that is left over. The government then taxes you on all of the profit you took out as income. If the government also taxed the "profit" the corp made before you paid yourself, you would be getting taxed TWICE on the same money. So for example if the corp profit was $100k, after corp taxes you'd have maybe $70k. Then after personal taxes and SS, maybe $50k, at which point you might just say "fuck it" -- 50% is too much tax -- fire everyone, and get a job from someone else in which you would earn more and be taxed less.
I'm entirely unsurprised that most corporations don't pay taxes -- most corporations aren't the size of IBM, MS, or Boeing.
The video on the TFA answers that. Apparently, the game was strung together with demos in the instruction book regarding bouncing balls or ballistic missiles. Higinbotham hadn't even considered it to be patentable before being asked because he felt it was an "oh so obvious" thing to do. Also, the gov't would own the patent.
What was interesting though was his "oh so obvious" thought -- 50 years later and we have companies patenting breathing, eating, and sleeping. I guess not all social values of the 50s were laughable.
On third thought, the keyboard doesn't transmit a character -- it sends a signal which software interprets as a character. So randomizing Xmodmap should work.
On second thought -- is it the actual key being pressed that creates the signal, or the sequence of bits for a particular character being transmitted that creates the signal? I'm guessing its the latter in which case randomizing the keyboard is only annoying.
How about using Xmodmap -- I could see a script that generates a random keyboard layout, a key-to-character chart would have to printed on the screen (which could be a problem I suppose), then you poke out your password, and then revert to the usual layout.
Well, in that case it would have been nice if they ran the attack with a complete running setup and tried to type at least 30 wpm. After watching the videos, I had the impression that the impression that the decoding software and/or hardware was simply not sensitive enough to capture real data -- this doesn't rule out future refinement, but it makes the current demo less impressive.