'The won't care if their download takes 5 days instead of 3'
I would certainly care. Using QoS to lower the priority of downloads is one thing, doing so to the extent that it actually has a visible effect on my download speeds instead of just impacting my latency is not appropriate.
That is what makes this ridiculous. I use simple QoS on my home network. I am able to run 20 torrents wide open, browse the web/play streaming video, and my wife is able to enjoy a low latency world of warcraft experience on two computers.
Is the bandwidth maxed out at all times? Pretty much. That doesn't prevent all the services on my network from performing well.
No this is brilliant. First, the cooling and power center will probably save Google massive amounts of money. Second and more importantly, this will allow Google to put its data centers in international waters and outside prying U.S. or other eyes.
Re:how is using sea water for cooling cool???
on
The Google Navy
·
· Score: 1
First of all, so what?
Second of all, I don't think you'll find a google data center to be on par with a nuclear power plant. They might have some heat to dissipate but the water isn't exactly going to be boiling.
'How do you toughen up a computer so that it can survive a marine environment?'
You submerge the components in something waterproof, something that can be used to conduct heat, something that will equalize shock and vibration... oh wait, how about mineral oil?
'Because I know that a man can have 10 children? Or because you're assuming that, because I said that, I support the practice, when in reality I never said anything for or against having that many children?'
Actually you did.
'With multiple wives, having ten kids per wife is a huge drain on resources. '
Meaning that having ten kids per wife with one wife is not a huge drain on resources.
Besides, your statement breaks down. The more wives, the more resources. 10 kids take a fixed amount of resources, if you only make each wife take care of one you will have eased her burden vs having 1 wife tend 10 children. In your example you are comparing 10 children to 20 or more.
'If monogamy or the lack thereof were genetic and there were an evolutionary advantage to either strategy, then you're right: that should have been reflected in the general population.
Since it doesn't seem to be,'
Who is making that assumption? Monogamy is pretty rare in the general population.
Garlic, Cranberries, and Vitamin D will help with most of those.
That said, nobody claimed that there are supplements to cure every ailment or that they supplant prescription medications. I only stated the simple fact that for every crazy diet pill or magic penis pill there are thousands of legitimate and effective supplements.
The next time you see a monstrous muscle bound tank that is larger than a human can be 15 years ago, keep in mind that the difference between him and the body builder of 15 years ago is the same supplements you are claiming should be thrown in with snake oil. I think body builders would beg to differ.
The FDA induced price tag is there because they INTEND to make sure the product and process are safe and effective. History has shown they often fall far short of the mark, and FDA approved compounds rank among some of the more dangerous substances known to man.
'While there are some supplements that are effective the industry as a whole is largely ineffective'
This is simply false. There are a few duds out there, and there are certainly plenty of 'formulas' that you will overpay for but there are thousands of very effective supplements. Walk into GNC and the man at the counter will not only show you effective supplements but will be happy to let you know what studies have been done on the effects of the supplement in question.
Most of those FDA approved drugs are slight modifications to chemicals found in supplements (for the most part the alterations only serve to make them patentable).
'Of course, this should be harder with something like penis enlargement where in theory you could actually measure it.'
The product contains herbs that increase bloodflow to the penis and thus make it easier to get a raging boner.
It isn't soft size that you measure, its erect size, and the harder it is (ie the more blood in it) the bigger it is. If you are at your fullest potential every time you will seem to be larger.
This is more like Viagra than Penis enlargement. You don't this or extenze or anything of the sort if you want this effect on the cheap. Just buy horny goat weed.
'And remember, that long term health effects have not been studied by ANY supplement'
This is not true. In fact, to qualify the exemption herbal supplements have to have a well established history of safe use (which is not the same as a clinical study, but does preclude a clinical study either).
Simply because supplements are not required to have a long term study to back them does not mean that none do.
For example, willow bark can be sold as a supplement. It's active components are backed by long term clinical studies and it has been used in medicine for thousands of years and thus qualifies for exemption from FDA evaluation. You might be more familiar with the extract form that has been evaluated by the FDA, known as Asprin.
Smiling bob is a con man, but that doesn't mean there aren't numerous supplements out there that aren't FDA evaluated and are very effective. For instance, those who fell for the smiling bob line might look to horny goat weed. It doesn't make you bigger, it increases blood flow which may make you appear bigger and makes it easier to get an erection. In fact, it works in the same manner as and is roughly comparable to Viagra... without the FDA induced price tag.
'So your argument seems to boil down to being that any time a product is sold to someone who probably wouldn't otherwise have bought it then it's fair game to not pay the copyright holder.'
That needs qualified a bit for accuracy. First, my ultimate claim is that this material is old enough that it should be in the public domain.
Second, the point is not that it is fair game to not pay the copyright holder. The point is that the copyright holder was NOT damaged in any way because of this. The damages to be reclaimed are zero, the exact amount of additional revenue the copyright holder would have received if this gentleman hadn't been selling consoles.
'But they are not just a 'bonus' - each unlicensed game adds value to the product. If the product would sell for $30 with 75 games, then customers would only pay, say, $29.80 for the product with only 74 games. Some part of that 20 cents deservedly goes to the copyright holder. '
Not really. I certainly am not willing to pay more for cheap software thrown in with hardware just so they can claim it comes with something. That is like claiming I would only have been willing to pay $400 for my new dell rather than $430 if it didn't include polar bowler or some such nonsense. The fact is the crapware isn't a consideration in my hardware purchase and while you may have added a cost into the purchase to include it, your price is obviously still less than the other guy.
This guy was selling consoles, those consoles included some old freeware games and if I've understood correctly he didn't even load the games, the consoles were imported from china with the software already included.
No, people are buying cheap consoles that include some free old games as a bonus.
Besides, the debate is not whether people would be willing to exchange value for the games but whether they would physically have taken that action had these games not been on the consoles. The answer is that no, people wouldn't buy 14-23yr old games that aren't available for sale.
No doubt, the total number of neurons limits the total potential of the brain. Of course everyone has a fully active brain but that doesn't mean everyone has equally efficient neural pathways. When you consider the volume of data that can be stored in a single strand of DNA you realize that even small insects could actually possess real intelligence.
For example, I saw a demonstration where a mobile robot was built with a sensitive ball as the control.
A roach was dropped onto the ball. At first, the robot sort of wabbled around a bit and then the roach learned that running on the ball caused the robot to move. When the light was turned on the roach directed the robot into a nearby dark hall... again, the roach understood not just how to control the robot but that he was controlling a body much larger than his own and thus needed the doorway to the hall and not the gap behind or below a closer sofa.
That is far more intelligence than I would have otherwise thought a roach capable of. It makes me wonder how much of the way we look at insect instinctual behavior could be applied to humans as well and if we don't fail to notice their complex behavior simply because they are small.
* There are 9 planets orbiting the sun. Turns out Pluto isn't even a planet.
Actually, planet is an arbitrarily assigned label and Pluto is no more less a planet than it was ever thought to be. It was arbitrarily labeled planet before and it has arbitrarily been demoted.
'And as for being for-profit: unfortunately, money changing hands is by far the best authenticators available today.'
That keeps kids out of the game. There are businesses making millions in this and they can and will pay for certs.
'this "technology" (how I loathe that word) is still vulnerable to MitM attacks'
biased and for-profit are synonymous. Every for-profit entity is biased toward their own bottom line.
'If you don't like one CA, see another.'
And that assures me of that SOMEONE ELSE is who they claim they are?
'this "technology" (how I loathe that word) is still vulnerable to MitM attacks'
And those claims have been disputed elsewhere as well. While a MitM attack remains possible in theory, it does not remain possible in practice. This still provides a better level of assurance than the current system.
'but does not foreclose the possibility that the notary requests themselves might be intercepted and impersonated by the MITM so the attack remains theoretically viable.'
No, it does not remove the theoretical possibility but it does remove the practical possibility.
The other method fails in both theory and practice because the security relies on the assumption of trust and that is not a sound principle in theory and is definitely not been shown to be sound in practice.
'You are still completely missing the point here.'
You are still completely missing the point here. It doesn't matter whether you can securely use the encryption without assurance the public key belongs to the person who you are trying to communicate with. That was a given and understood point from the start, both you and the other AC are obsessed with a point that was never in dispute.
The point is that the certificate authorities FAIL to provide that assurance and further represent a burden that this technology now alleviates. With this technology that assurance is provided without the need for the biased and profit motivated certificate authorities.
Since the certificate authorities FAILED to provide that assurance, implementing the process only served to provide a less than secure encryption process that did at least prevent sniffing without a man in the middle attack. That much could be provided without the authorities at all.
With this new extension the level of security and assurance envisioned for browser security (and pretended by those who chose to ignore the problems with the certificate agencies) can finally be achieved.
Problem solved, both sniffing and man-in-middle attacks thwarted. I won't go around questioning the intelligence of an individual who I believe to be ignorant. I will say that you have displayed a density that is rather impressive. I won't say as much for the other AC (who might actually be you) since he hasn't claimed credit for yet another post beating a dead horse that was adequately explained IN MY ORIGINAL POST.
'So, how exactly can you tell the difference between the third party and say, the man-in-the-middle?'
Via a browser extension that utilizes MULTIPLE third parties like this one I'd guess.
'You are free, of course, to put an end to any argument requiring intelligence to participate due to your obvious lack thereof.'
Clearly, you are the great and wise one who is unable to make a point without attempting slander.
'Certificates were never about encryption. They were always about identity.'
Certificates were never USED to verify identity, and have always been USED to provide encryption. How they were intended to be used or should be used is irrelevant. $15 will get you certs from a number of authorities that claim you are someone you aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
'The won't care if their download takes 5 days instead of 3'
I would certainly care. Using QoS to lower the priority of downloads is one thing, doing so to the extent that it actually has a visible effect on my download speeds instead of just impacting my latency is not appropriate.
That is what makes this ridiculous. I use simple QoS on my home network. I am able to run 20 torrents wide open, browse the web/play streaming video, and my wife is able to enjoy a low latency world of warcraft experience on two computers.
Is the bandwidth maxed out at all times? Pretty much. That doesn't prevent all the services on my network from performing well.
No this is brilliant. First, the cooling and power center will probably save Google massive amounts of money. Second and more importantly, this will allow Google to put its data centers in international waters and outside prying U.S. or other eyes.
First of all, so what?
Second of all, I don't think you'll find a google data center to be on par with a nuclear power plant. They might have some heat to dissipate but the water isn't exactly going to be boiling.
'How do you toughen up a computer so that it can survive a marine environment?'
You submerge the components in something waterproof, something that can be used to conduct heat, something that will equalize shock and vibration... oh wait, how about mineral oil?
You actually keep count? I stopped trying a long time ago. You have to make up small numbers for the females anyway.
'Because I know that a man can have 10 children? Or because you're assuming that, because I said that, I support the practice, when in reality I never said anything for or against having that many children?'
Actually you did.
'With multiple wives, having ten kids per wife is a huge drain on resources. '
Meaning that having ten kids per wife with one wife is not a huge drain on resources.
Besides, your statement breaks down. The more wives, the more resources. 10 kids take a fixed amount of resources, if you only make each wife take care of one you will have eased her burden vs having 1 wife tend 10 children. In your example you are comparing 10 children to 20 or more.
*sighs* Drugs have really gone downhill. Even pot has a better high than Oxycontin.
There is nothing hateful about wanting to have sex with multiple women, quite the contrary.
This discussion is gender centric because the study was.
I would prefer to have no wives and just have sex with 10 different women each week.
'If monogamy or the lack thereof were genetic and there were an evolutionary advantage to either strategy, then you're right: that should have been reflected in the general population.
Since it doesn't seem to be,'
Who is making that assumption? Monogamy is pretty rare in the general population.
'With one wife, men can have more than 10 kids quite easily.'
Clearly you are part of the problem.
Garlic, Cranberries, and Vitamin D will help with most of those.
That said, nobody claimed that there are supplements to cure every ailment or that they supplant prescription medications. I only stated the simple fact that for every crazy diet pill or magic penis pill there are thousands of legitimate and effective supplements.
The next time you see a monstrous muscle bound tank that is larger than a human can be 15 years ago, keep in mind that the difference between him and the body builder of 15 years ago is the same supplements you are claiming should be thrown in with snake oil. I think body builders would beg to differ.
The FDA induced price tag is there because they INTEND to make sure the product and process are safe and effective. History has shown they often fall far short of the mark, and FDA approved compounds rank among some of the more dangerous substances known to man.
'While there are some supplements that are effective the industry as a whole is largely ineffective'
This is simply false. There are a few duds out there, and there are certainly plenty of 'formulas' that you will overpay for but there are thousands of very effective supplements. Walk into GNC and the man at the counter will not only show you effective supplements but will be happy to let you know what studies have been done on the effects of the supplement in question.
Most of those FDA approved drugs are slight modifications to chemicals found in supplements (for the most part the alterations only serve to make them patentable).
'Of course, this should be harder with something like penis enlargement where in theory you could actually measure it.'
The product contains herbs that increase bloodflow to the penis and thus make it easier to get a raging boner.
It isn't soft size that you measure, its erect size, and the harder it is (ie the more blood in it) the bigger it is. If you are at your fullest potential every time you will seem to be larger.
This is more like Viagra than Penis enlargement. You don't this or extenze or anything of the sort if you want this effect on the cheap. Just buy horny goat weed.
'And remember, that long term health effects have not been studied by ANY supplement'
This is not true. In fact, to qualify the exemption herbal supplements have to have a well established history of safe use (which is not the same as a clinical study, but does preclude a clinical study either).
Simply because supplements are not required to have a long term study to back them does not mean that none do.
For example, willow bark can be sold as a supplement. It's active components are backed by long term clinical studies and it has been used in medicine for thousands of years and thus qualifies for exemption from FDA evaluation. You might be more familiar with the extract form that has been evaluated by the FDA, known as Asprin.
Smiling bob is a con man, but that doesn't mean there aren't numerous supplements out there that aren't FDA evaluated and are very effective. For instance, those who fell for the smiling bob line might look to horny goat weed. It doesn't make you bigger, it increases blood flow which may make you appear bigger and makes it easier to get an erection. In fact, it works in the same manner as and is roughly comparable to Viagra... without the FDA induced price tag.
'So your argument seems to boil down to being that any time a product is sold to someone who probably wouldn't otherwise have bought it then it's fair game to not pay the copyright holder.'
That needs qualified a bit for accuracy. First, my ultimate claim is that this material is old enough that it should be in the public domain.
Second, the point is not that it is fair game to not pay the copyright holder. The point is that the copyright holder was NOT damaged in any way because of this. The damages to be reclaimed are zero, the exact amount of additional revenue the copyright holder would have received if this gentleman hadn't been selling consoles.
'But they are not just a 'bonus' - each unlicensed game adds value to the product. If the product would sell for $30 with 75 games, then customers would only pay, say, $29.80 for the product with only 74 games. Some part of that 20 cents deservedly goes to the copyright holder. '
Not really. I certainly am not willing to pay more for cheap software thrown in with hardware just so they can claim it comes with something. That is like claiming I would only have been willing to pay $400 for my new dell rather than $430 if it didn't include polar bowler or some such nonsense. The fact is the crapware isn't a consideration in my hardware purchase and while you may have added a cost into the purchase to include it, your price is obviously still less than the other guy.
This guy was selling consoles, those consoles included some old freeware games and if I've understood correctly he didn't even load the games, the consoles were imported from china with the software already included.
No, people are buying cheap consoles that include some free old games as a bonus.
Besides, the debate is not whether people would be willing to exchange value for the games but whether they would physically have taken that action had these games not been on the consoles. The answer is that no, people wouldn't buy 14-23yr old games that aren't available for sale.
Exactly they do it for survival. Humans are violent for entertainment. Think about it.
No doubt, the total number of neurons limits the total potential of the brain. Of course everyone has a fully active brain but that doesn't mean everyone has equally efficient neural pathways. When you consider the volume of data that can be stored in a single strand of DNA you realize that even small insects could actually possess real intelligence.
For example, I saw a demonstration where a mobile robot was built with a sensitive ball as the control.
A roach was dropped onto the ball. At first, the robot sort of wabbled around a bit and then the roach learned that running on the ball caused the robot to move. When the light was turned on the roach directed the robot into a nearby dark hall... again, the roach understood not just how to control the robot but that he was controlling a body much larger than his own and thus needed the doorway to the hall and not the gap behind or below a closer sofa.
That is far more intelligence than I would have otherwise thought a roach capable of. It makes me wonder how much of the way we look at insect instinctual behavior could be applied to humans as well and if we don't fail to notice their complex behavior simply because they are small.
* There are 9 planets orbiting the sun. Turns out Pluto isn't even a planet.
Actually, planet is an arbitrarily assigned label and Pluto is no more less a planet than it was ever thought to be. It was arbitrarily labeled planet before and it has arbitrarily been demoted.
'And as for being for-profit: unfortunately, money changing hands is by far the best authenticators available today.'
That keeps kids out of the game. There are businesses making millions in this and they can and will pay for certs.
'this "technology" (how I loathe that word) is still vulnerable to MitM attacks'
biased and for-profit are synonymous. Every for-profit entity is biased toward their own bottom line.
'If you don't like one CA, see another.'
And that assures me of that SOMEONE ELSE is who they claim they are?
'this "technology" (how I loathe that word) is still vulnerable to MitM attacks'
And those claims have been disputed elsewhere as well. While a MitM attack remains possible in theory, it does not remain possible in practice. This still provides a better level of assurance than the current system.
'but does not foreclose the possibility that the notary requests themselves might be intercepted and impersonated by the MITM so the attack remains theoretically viable.'
No, it does not remove the theoretical possibility but it does remove the practical possibility.
The other method fails in both theory and practice because the security relies on the assumption of trust and that is not a sound principle in theory and is definitely not been shown to be sound in practice.
'You are still completely missing the point here.'
You are still completely missing the point here. It doesn't matter whether you can securely use the encryption without assurance the public key belongs to the person who you are trying to communicate with. That was a given and understood point from the start, both you and the other AC are obsessed with a point that was never in dispute.
The point is that the certificate authorities FAIL to provide that assurance and further represent a burden that this technology now alleviates. With this technology that assurance is provided without the need for the biased and profit motivated certificate authorities.
Since the certificate authorities FAILED to provide that assurance, implementing the process only served to provide a less than secure encryption process that did at least prevent sniffing without a man in the middle attack. That much could be provided without the authorities at all.
With this new extension the level of security and assurance envisioned for browser security (and pretended by those who chose to ignore the problems with the certificate agencies) can finally be achieved.
Problem solved, both sniffing and man-in-middle attacks thwarted. I won't go around questioning the intelligence of an individual who I believe to be ignorant. I will say that you have displayed a density that is rather impressive. I won't say as much for the other AC (who might actually be you) since he hasn't claimed credit for yet another post beating a dead horse that was adequately explained IN MY ORIGINAL POST.
Better yet, refer to this post.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=656323&cid=24739889
'So, how exactly can you tell the difference between the third party and say, the man-in-the-middle?'
Via a browser extension that utilizes MULTIPLE third parties like this one I'd guess.
'You are free, of course, to put an end to any argument requiring intelligence to participate due to your obvious lack thereof.'
Clearly, you are the great and wise one who is unable to make a point without attempting slander.
'Certificates were never about encryption. They were always about identity.'
Certificates were never USED to verify identity, and have always been USED to provide encryption. How they were intended to be used or should be used is irrelevant. $15 will get you certs from a number of authorities that claim you are someone you aren't.