It's very easy to say "we should be spending less". It's a lot harder to identify areas to be cut that will make a difference and that people aren't so passionate about that the cuts won't be reversed in 4 years or less.
Why is why America is going to to bankrupt rather than fix its problems.
The real problem is that people want sprawling houses, and are not comfortable living in smaller places.
And how is that a problem?
Ah, because governments don't want people getting what they want, they want to force the proles to live in Stalinist apartment blocks while only the Polibureau get houses in the country.
wouldn't this be a non issue if we had ipv6 with ip security setup?
IPSEC requires either preshared keys or CAs, so the problems are the same. Plus there's no real indication to the application that it's using an encrypted connection so you still need to run SSL on top.
It's only more dangerous if you think it isn't. Browsers could display self-signed sites as if they were unencrypted; that would be better than the current situation, and no more dangerous.
Yeah, because when people go to https://mybank.com/ and someone sends them a fake certificate it's much better to just not put a lock icon in the status bar than to put up a huge warning page saying 'YOU ARE GOING TO BE PWNED!'
OpenSSH still works fine using the equivalent of self-signed certificates.
Until someone wants to commit a man in the middle attack on you and then you're screwed. The one way that SSH works better than SSL is that it tells you if the certificate has changed, which current browsers don't seem to do; that means they have to do a man in the middle attack before the first time you connect and SSH caches the key.
I've never said self-signed certificates are perfect, only that they do offer benefits over unencrypted connections.
And huge potential security holes which completely break signed key security. If I go to https://mybank.com/ I sure as hell don't want my browser to accept a self-signed key without warning me.
What benefit does a StartSSL certificate have over a self-signed certificate when accessing a random web forum run by someone I've never heard of?
Probably none, because I don't believe that any browser ships with support for StartSSL and hence will treat it as an unsigned key.
The problem with SSL is that browsers accept far too many 'authorities' not too few.
The way they subbed out parts of the OS sucked as well. Vietnam got this part that had to talk to this other part made in Russia which the people in the US had to integrate.
Don't worry, I'm sure some MBA got a phat bonus for saving money on software development by outsourcing.
Big corporations _LOVE_ regulation, because the costs keep smaller, smarter, more innovative competitors out of the market. Big business and big government are not enemies, they're symbiotic organisms.
There are two Dr Who Films that you might want to view, I'm not sure how they well regarded they are by fans but I like them. They have Peter Cushing in and are about the Daleks. They were made in the 1960s. You can at least have a laugh at the terrible FX and funky music.
I find the movie DVDs work best if you switch them to the French soundtrack and turn the TV color off so it's in black and white. That way they look like pretentious 60s French movies. Particularly the one that's set in London.
What could these critical components be really? Just want to know. With this datum, can someone convince me that Japan is manufacturing these components because it's cheaper than to manufacture them in the USA?
It's a few years since I worked for a company that made chips, but from what I remember every chip mask we used was made in Japan because they were the only country with the technology to do so. That wouldn't affect existing chips but would prevent you from making new ones.
Fairly significant, actually. Kistler's original launcher design was an 'SSTO' which would have launched from a platform lifted to around 100,000 feet; they reckoned that made the difference between viable and non-viable for that design.
There are two main benefits: you don't have to worry about aerodynamic drag, and you can use engines optimised for vacuum operation which are more efficient than engines optimised for sea-level operation.
A truly progressive president would leave the science to scientists.
Who would be demanding that Congress end the manned spaceflight boondoggle and put the money into science missions instead. You can fly half a dozen unmanned probes around the solar system for the cost of one shuttle flight, and could have flown hundreds for the cost of ISS.
Getting NASA out of the launcher business is probably the best thing Obama has ever done.
The one downside of nuclear rockets is that if we had another Challenger-esque disaster, this time with, say, plutonium fuel, the repercussions would be much, much, much more immense. Just to be sure, we'd have to launch all rockets from tiny little atolls in the middle of the ocean.
Except you wouldn't use plutonium for fuel.
When NASA were planning to launch NERVA rockets the flight path would have been south from California so that any launch failure would either dump the NERVA into the ocean or the Antarctic. And since it would have been boosted by a conventional Saturn V, there wouldn't be any really nasty radioactivity until the NERVA started firing late in the launch.
That said, using nuclear fission rockets for launch from Earth still seems pretty optimistic to me.
As far as I remember the biggest threat to astronauts is from cosmic rays, which are charged particles and require shedloads of shielding if you want to stop them with a passive shield.
Yeah, because no competent programmer could have come up with those ideas by themselves. 'Oh look, my web page is taking a long time to display because I'm waiting for the background image to download. I can't think of any possible way I could avoid that.'
"Amassing billions and billions of dollars" makes one a loser, I guess.
How long can you continue 'amassing billions and billions of dollars' when your market is shrinking and your competitors own the new markets you want to get into?
Agreed 100%. We live in a society where adjectives like "educated" and "intellectual" are used as epithets rather than compliments.
Probably because the 'best and brightest' were responsible for most of America's great political disasters of the 20th century. It wasn't the kids who slacked off at school and got jobs stacking shelves who pushed America into the Vietnam War, for example.
Imagine if a CS worker were hired in an airline as a pilot (Don't worry we'll train you in 4 weeks), or *shudder* as a surgeon.
That doesn't seem too far from reality, because I was reading a few days ago about another airline pilot in a foreign country with fake credentials. Apparently the authorities took a while to realise that a pilot who kept landing on the nosewheel instead of the main wheels might not really know what they were doing...
The US doesn't make anything anymore. We depend on the export of agricultural goods and licensing intellection property to get any money into the country.
But if this should actually pass as a global treaty, no-one would be able to import copyrighted goods from America, so there goes that idea.
I can only imagine they're following the usual tactic of trying to come up with the most insane ideas they could so that when they relax it back to what they originally wanted people will say 'we'd better let them have this because look how bad it could be otherwise'.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that TV channels might show things people want to watch rather than things people don't want to watch? And that's a bad thing?
It's very easy to say "we should be spending less". It's a lot harder to identify areas to be cut that will make a difference and that people aren't so passionate about that the cuts won't be reversed in 4 years or less.
Why is why America is going to to bankrupt rather than fix its problems.
The real problem is that people want sprawling houses, and are not comfortable living in smaller places.
And how is that a problem?
Ah, because governments don't want people getting what they want, they want to force the proles to live in Stalinist apartment blocks while only the Polibureau get houses in the country.
wouldn't this be a non issue if we had ipv6 with ip security setup?
IPSEC requires either preshared keys or CAs, so the problems are the same. Plus there's no real indication to the application that it's using an encrypted connection so you still need to run SSL on top.
It's only more dangerous if you think it isn't. Browsers could display self-signed sites as if they were unencrypted; that would be better than the current situation, and no more dangerous.
Yeah, because when people go to https://mybank.com/ and someone sends them a fake certificate it's much better to just not put a lock icon in the status bar than to put up a huge warning page saying 'YOU ARE GOING TO BE PWNED!'
OpenSSH still works fine using the equivalent of self-signed certificates.
Until someone wants to commit a man in the middle attack on you and then you're screwed. The one way that SSH works better than SSL is that it tells you if the certificate has changed, which current browsers don't seem to do; that means they have to do a man in the middle attack before the first time you connect and SSH caches the key.
I've never said self-signed certificates are perfect, only that they do offer benefits over unencrypted connections.
And huge potential security holes which completely break signed key security. If I go to https://mybank.com/ I sure as hell don't want my browser to accept a self-signed key without warning me.
What benefit does a StartSSL certificate have over a self-signed certificate when accessing a random web forum run by someone I've never heard of?
Probably none, because I don't believe that any browser ships with support for StartSSL and hence will treat it as an unsigned key.
The problem with SSL is that browsers accept far too many 'authorities' not too few.
The way they subbed out parts of the OS sucked as well. Vietnam got this part that had to talk to this other part made in Russia which the people in the US had to integrate.
Don't worry, I'm sure some MBA got a phat bonus for saving money on software development by outsourcing.
This is what these giant corporations want.
Big corporations _LOVE_ regulation, because the costs keep smaller, smarter, more innovative competitors out of the market. Big business and big government are not enemies, they're symbiotic organisms.
There are two Dr Who Films that you might want to view, I'm not sure how they well regarded they are by fans but I like them. They have Peter Cushing in and are about the Daleks. They were made in the 1960s. You can at least have a laugh at the terrible FX and funky music.
I find the movie DVDs work best if you switch them to the French soundtrack and turn the TV color off so it's in black and white. That way they look like pretentious 60s French movies. Particularly the one that's set in London.
What could these critical components be really? Just want to know. With this datum, can someone convince me that Japan is manufacturing these components because it's cheaper than to manufacture them in the USA?
It's a few years since I worked for a company that made chips, but from what I remember every chip mask we used was made in Japan because they were the only country with the technology to do so. That wouldn't affect existing chips but would prevent you from making new ones.
Reporters need to eat, though.
The reporters I've known used to eat and drink an awful lot on their expense accounts.
I didn't see the part about stopping random people on the street.
That's because it won't begin until this system is widely installed and 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'.
Does no-one learn anything from history?
Simply because to make if work you need lots of cheap nuclear weapons. EXACTLY the kind of thing that no sane person wants in the world.
I'm guessing the rebels in the middle east probably wish they had some cheap nuclear weapons right now.
Fairly significant, actually. Kistler's original launcher design was an 'SSTO' which would have launched from a platform lifted to around 100,000 feet; they reckoned that made the difference between viable and non-viable for that design.
There are two main benefits: you don't have to worry about aerodynamic drag, and you can use engines optimised for vacuum operation which are more efficient than engines optimised for sea-level operation.
It also goes along the line of why not utilize the previous designs for the shuttle and improve on it rather than making a whole new launch system?
Because the shuttle is a flawed design created by committee to meet numerous contradictory requirements?
A truly progressive president would leave the science to scientists.
Who would be demanding that Congress end the manned spaceflight boondoggle and put the money into science missions instead. You can fly half a dozen unmanned probes around the solar system for the cost of one shuttle flight, and could have flown hundreds for the cost of ISS.
Getting NASA out of the launcher business is probably the best thing Obama has ever done.
And it's not like anything we eat actually comes from the ocean, so it's a great place to dump stuff.
The impact on sea life of a few tons of uranium on the seabed would be practically zero.
The one downside of nuclear rockets is that if we had another Challenger-esque disaster, this time with, say, plutonium fuel, the repercussions would be much, much, much more immense. Just to be sure, we'd have to launch all rockets from tiny little atolls in the middle of the ocean.
Except you wouldn't use plutonium for fuel.
When NASA were planning to launch NERVA rockets the flight path would have been south from California so that any launch failure would either dump the NERVA into the ocean or the Antarctic. And since it would have been boosted by a conventional Saturn V, there wouldn't be any really nasty radioactivity until the NERVA started firing late in the launch.
That said, using nuclear fission rockets for launch from Earth still seems pretty optimistic to me.
As far as I remember the biggest threat to astronauts is from cosmic rays, which are charged particles and require shedloads of shielding if you want to stop them with a passive shield.
Yeah, because no competent programmer could have come up with those ideas by themselves. 'Oh look, my web page is taking a long time to display because I'm waiting for the background image to download. I can't think of any possible way I could avoid that.'
Sounds like market failure to me.
Except that patents, a government-granted monopoly, are pretty much the antithesis of a free market.
"Amassing billions and billions of dollars" makes one a loser, I guess.
How long can you continue 'amassing billions and billions of dollars' when your market is shrinking and your competitors own the new markets you want to get into?
Agreed 100%. We live in a society where adjectives like "educated" and "intellectual" are used as epithets rather than compliments.
Probably because the 'best and brightest' were responsible for most of America's great political disasters of the 20th century. It wasn't the kids who slacked off at school and got jobs stacking shelves who pushed America into the Vietnam War, for example.
Imagine if a CS worker were hired in an airline as a pilot (Don't worry we'll train you in 4 weeks), or *shudder* as a surgeon.
That doesn't seem too far from reality, because I was reading a few days ago about another airline pilot in a foreign country with fake credentials. Apparently the authorities took a while to realise that a pilot who kept landing on the nosewheel instead of the main wheels might not really know what they were doing...
The US doesn't make anything anymore. We depend on the export of agricultural goods and licensing intellection property to get any money into the country.
But if this should actually pass as a global treaty, no-one would be able to import copyrighted goods from America, so there goes that idea.
I can only imagine they're following the usual tactic of trying to come up with the most insane ideas they could so that when they relax it back to what they originally wanted people will say 'we'd better let them have this because look how bad it could be otherwise'.