We need an open, publicly available, suitably licensed set of text that can be selected for inclusion into all contracts that explicitly disavows, rejects, and excludes any other clause that may allow for binding arbitration. Can some friendly lawyer or knowledgeable person rise to the task, please?
I still use my little rectangular clip-on original iPod shuffle, even with an iPhone of 100,000x the computing power nearby. It sits in the case with my noise-canceling headphones, is ready when I take them out, does exactly the job I need and doesn't use up the battery of the phone. There's something to be said for exactly the right amount of technology at just the right place for what is needed - and it's always in "airplane mode"!
A Chromebit or Chromebox as described here: http://www.androidcentral.com/... coupled with a portable Bluetooth or USB dongle-connected keyboard and mouse should work. We've been playing with these for signage but trying them out at home or at hotel rooms. They plug into HDMI TVs or monitors, and you can even install Ubuntu on them for a full stand-alone experience. (See https://www.reddit.com/r/chrom... for example.)
Yes, you can find Windows alternatives, but what's the point?
The US National Science Foundation does now have a policy of allowing researchers to list other types of products, such as the ones that you mention, on their CVs when applying for grants.
Now if we could just get it interfaced to the Open Cloud Computing Interface (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Cloud_Computing_Interface), all would be well.
Thanks for the clarification. your phrasing was ambiguous and your conclusions inaccurate, nonetheless, or misleading at best.
It is not entirely your fault - the premise of the original post was also completely off the mark. Namespace controls on CA signing *should* be the topic under discussion. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for root and intermediate CA public key distribution; in fact, that's the way that PKI works.
The private key is of course held by the CA and protecting it is essential. If you are looking for a point of agreement, there it is. To the degree that multiple sources of root CAs are required for PKI to work in practice, there is obviously an increased risk if more root CAs are employed, but applying the reductio ad adsurbum rule to this argument would imply that the optimum number of root CAs is zero (or one, which has its own risk considerations).
In general, the original poster is wrong to imply that distribution of a root CA (and any needed intermediate CA) public certificates is in any way indicative of evil intent, or that it necessarily allows MITM or other hacks to be applied. I do agree that browsers could and should be written to warn of the presence of such roots of trust if they come without appropriate namespace limitations. The whole argument presented here is fairly absurd and juvenile, but like all points of rancor on the internet, there is some small set of issues at its core that have always been clear and could usefully be brought out in further discussion.
This is completely wrong. The "Root CA" referred to by the original post is the public key of the CA in question, not the CA itself. There is no such potential for compromise in having a copy of the public key for the root or any CA in the trust chain.
Thinking seriously about adding a solar panel + inverter + storage option for electric car charging and air conditioning, my biggest electricity usage needs. Each of these could be interrupted briefly for switchover to power company feeds without degradation in service, unlike using the solar electricity for normal household power.
Since we live in an area that has abundant sunshine and high electric costs, this would seem to me to be the low-hanging fruit for solar electricity and would avoid policy and contract issues with our local power provider. So how about a few practical posts from people who have information to share, and less hyperventilating about politics and policy?
Considering the trends when he was writing, and which of these were easy projections compared to tough predictions, I'd say the Good Doctor got much more right than wrong in this article. You were expecting may be 100% You've been reading too much Buzzfeed...
Has no one noticed in this thread that the revenue model of WhatsApp is to charge after the first year of use? It's not surprising that it would be popular while it is free, especially with no advertising. How many of these young users will start to pay after the first year of use?
I'd be dead without mine. Picture this: me moving about 30 miles per hour down a long straight hill in the Bay area, pedaling hard, and misjudging the light I see changing on the side street, I plow my bike full-on into the side of a car turning right in front of me. The 100+ feet of skid marks I left on the asphalt before correctly determining that I would not be able to stop were not enough to avoid the collision. About 30 feet before my bike slammed into the side of the vehicle, I stood up on the left side pedal, timed my departure, and pushed off, jumping from it in time to fly through the air just behind the car as my bike proceeded ahead. It was a cool day, and I had a jacket on. I sailed upside down, face up past the car and landed on my back and head, sliding along the ground on my jacket and helmet for a good 20 or 30 feet farther down the slope. I remember coming to rest and laying there for a while, then getting up to check the car and the accident site. I was fine, though a little shaken up. Traffic had stopped in each direction and people were swarming around the car. The driver got out, completely white. I looked at the dent and my bike, crumpled and considerably shorter than it had ever been from one end to the other. People said they had seen sparks when the collision happened. I told the driver, looking at the dent, "I'm sorry about your car." He said in a high voice, "Never mind about the car! Are you all right?" I said I was fine. I felt pretty wobbly, though, and someone took me the rest of the way home. Later, I took the bike into our local shop, which was a good one. The guy behind the counter turned around from the bike he was working on, and when he saw what I had carried in, he put down the wrench, came around the counter, put his hand on my shoulder and said firmly but gently, "My friend, that bike is history." I would be dead without my helmet. Bikes are not just for tooling around parks slowly, looking at the scenery. And even when you think they are, or just vehicles for ambling gently from place to place, things can turn ugly in an unexpected way very, very fast. *Wear your helmet.*
I'd be dead without mine. Picture this: me moving about 30 miles per hour down a long straight hill in the Bay area, pedaling hard, and misjudging the light I see changing on the side street, I plow my bike full-on into the side of a car turning right in front of me. The 100+ feet of skid marks I left on the asphalt before correctly determining that I would not be able to stop were not enough to avoid the collision. About 30 feet before my bike slammed into the side of the vehicle, I stood up on the left side pedal, timed my departure, and pushed off, jumping from it in time to fly through the air just behind the car as my bike proceeded ahead. It was a cool day, and I had a jacket on. I sailed upside down, face up past the car and landed on my back and head, sliding along the ground on my jacket and helmet for a good 20 or 30 feet farther down the slope.
I remember coming to rest and laying there for a while, then getting up to check the car and the accident site. I was fine, though a little shaken up. Traffic had stopped in each direction and people were swarming around the car. The driver got out, completely white. I looked at the dent and my bike, crumpled and considerably shorter than it had ever been from one end to the other. People said they had seen sparks when the collision happened. I told the driver, looking at the dent, "I'm sorry about your car." He said in a high voice, "Never mind about the car! Are you all right?"
I said I was fine. I felt pretty wobbly, though, and someone took me the rest of the way home. Later, I took the bike into our local shop, which was a good one. The guy behind the counter turned around from the bike he was working on, and when he saw what I had carried in, he put down the wrench, came around the counter, put his hand on my shoulder and said firmly but gently, "My friend, that bike is history."
I would be dead without my helmet.
Bikes are not just for tooling around parks slowly, looking at the scenery. And even when you think they are, or just vehicles for ambling gently from place to place, things can turn ugly in an unexpected way very, very fast.
Wear your helmet.
Apart from the visual clutter that advertising produces, which I find distracting, the cpu load from flash and animated or script-enabled ads is simply not worth the performance impact that it has on my (fairly new, modern) machines. This applies to both laptops, where there is also an impact on battery life, as well as desktops. I don't say this out of speculation; anyone with a small computer with a fan that responds to cpu load can verify it on their own, and I have also measured the effect of turning on various levels of ad-blocking on cpu and disk I/O real-time when making my decisions.
Overall, my message to advertisers is: less is more. If you stray too far into technologies that consume resources on the user side of the equation, you will be blocked.
From teh article: "it remains unclear whether caffeine is a ubiquitous contaminant of marine systems and if there is any trend in the distribution of caffeine relative to anthropogenic sources of caffeine contamination."
There could be natural sources of caffeine washed into bays and coastal waters. Making the leap from caffeine to coffee contamination is, according to the authors, not justified.
Equipped with lasers, no less, on MARS -- and you want to claim copyright to their video of it? Very anti-Darwinian of you, Scripps, very anti-Darwinian. I wouldn't want to be standing next to you when the next one lands in your vicinity!
Great article. One quick correction from a practitioner in the field: there is plenty of open source software in use in and developed by science. Care for a useful example? The Scientific Linux distribution of Fermilab and CERN is a good example, very accessible to everyone. (And there is that whole World Wide Web thing - not exclusively open source, but still pretty darn useful!)
I already block Flash automatically, as it drags down performance and rarely adds any content.
There are a few cases in which useful content has been designed in Flash, but most of the time it is useless eye candy - and more often than not, just pure advertising. A great way to block most advertising that you do not want is to block Flash. Why would you not want to do that?
If you read the post a bit more slowly and carefully, it may become clearer that the latter part of the is about scientific computing in general.
As it happens, I work in a high performance computing center and use Linux all of the time. Beyond that, Macs account for about half of the personal desktops or laptops used here, with Windows and Linux also represented. What I like best about my OS X laptop is that I can do essentially anything I need to do from it, through it, or via scripts that share between the two.
That having been said, I agree with you that Linux dominates the bulk-computing environments found within high performance computing, despite serious attempts on the part of Microsoft to get traction into this space. To first order, scientific computing IS Linux, with personal machine environments connecting to these systems left to personal choice.
My point remains that Linux is essential for science and that someone going into science will surely be exposed to it and trained in its use. My personal choice for an individual laptop and desktop environment is OS X, and I note that a larger fraction of scientists make this choice than in other fields, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
We need an open, publicly available, suitably licensed set of text that can be selected for inclusion into all contracts that explicitly disavows, rejects, and excludes any other clause that may allow for binding arbitration. Can some friendly lawyer or knowledgeable person rise to the task, please?
I still use my little rectangular clip-on original iPod shuffle, even with an iPhone of 100,000x the computing power nearby. It sits in the case with my noise-canceling headphones, is ready when I take them out, does exactly the job I need and doesn't use up the battery of the phone. There's something to be said for exactly the right amount of technology at just the right place for what is needed - and it's always in "airplane mode"!
My wife loves it.
A Chromebit or Chromebox as described here: http://www.androidcentral.com/... coupled with a portable Bluetooth or USB dongle-connected keyboard and mouse should work. We've been playing with these for signage but trying them out at home or at hotel rooms. They plug into HDMI TVs or monitors, and you can even install Ubuntu on them for a full stand-alone experience. (See https://www.reddit.com/r/chrom... for example.) Yes, you can find Windows alternatives, but what's the point?
The article linked by this story blocks its contents unless you turn off ad-blockers or agree to pay a fee. So much for open citations!
Forgot this? http://www.extremetech.com/com...
The US National Science Foundation does now have a policy of allowing researchers to list other types of products, such as the ones that you mention, on their CVs when applying for grants.
Now if we could just get it interfaced to the Open Cloud Computing Interface (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Cloud_Computing_Interface), all would be well.
Thanks for the clarification. your phrasing was ambiguous and your conclusions inaccurate, nonetheless, or misleading at best. It is not entirely your fault - the premise of the original post was also completely off the mark. Namespace controls on CA signing *should* be the topic under discussion. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for root and intermediate CA public key distribution; in fact, that's the way that PKI works. The private key is of course held by the CA and protecting it is essential. If you are looking for a point of agreement, there it is. To the degree that multiple sources of root CAs are required for PKI to work in practice, there is obviously an increased risk if more root CAs are employed, but applying the reductio ad adsurbum rule to this argument would imply that the optimum number of root CAs is zero (or one, which has its own risk considerations). In general, the original poster is wrong to imply that distribution of a root CA (and any needed intermediate CA) public certificates is in any way indicative of evil intent, or that it necessarily allows MITM or other hacks to be applied. I do agree that browsers could and should be written to warn of the presence of such roots of trust if they come without appropriate namespace limitations. The whole argument presented here is fairly absurd and juvenile, but like all points of rancor on the internet, there is some small set of issues at its core that have always been clear and could usefully be brought out in further discussion.
This is completely wrong. The "Root CA" referred to by the original post is the public key of the CA in question, not the CA itself. There is no such potential for compromise in having a copy of the public key for the root or any CA in the trust chain.
Thinking seriously about adding a solar panel + inverter + storage option for electric car charging and air conditioning, my biggest electricity usage needs. Each of these could be interrupted briefly for switchover to power company feeds without degradation in service, unlike using the solar electricity for normal household power. Since we live in an area that has abundant sunshine and high electric costs, this would seem to me to be the low-hanging fruit for solar electricity and would avoid policy and contract issues with our local power provider. So how about a few practical posts from people who have information to share, and less hyperventilating about politics and policy?
Considering the trends when he was writing, and which of these were easy projections compared to tough predictions, I'd say the Good Doctor got much more right than wrong in this article. You were expecting may be 100% You've been reading too much Buzzfeed...
Has no one noticed in this thread that the revenue model of WhatsApp is to charge after the first year of use? It's not surprising that it would be popular while it is free, especially with no advertising. How many of these young users will start to pay after the first year of use?
https://developers.google.com/google-apps/ --> https://developers.google.com/apps-script/ or directly to script.google.com (Full-disclosure: not affiliated - just a user.)
... We need to make that part true.
Yes - not even the new Apple maps are *quite* that bad! ;-) Not sure about the Nokia ones, though, without direct experience...
I'd be dead without mine. Picture this: me moving about 30 miles per hour down a long straight hill in the Bay area, pedaling hard, and misjudging the light I see changing on the side street, I plow my bike full-on into the side of a car turning right in front of me. The 100+ feet of skid marks I left on the asphalt before correctly determining that I would not be able to stop were not enough to avoid the collision. About 30 feet before my bike slammed into the side of the vehicle, I stood up on the left side pedal, timed my departure, and pushed off, jumping from it in time to fly through the air just behind the car as my bike proceeded ahead. It was a cool day, and I had a jacket on. I sailed upside down, face up past the car and landed on my back and head, sliding along the ground on my jacket and helmet for a good 20 or 30 feet farther down the slope. I remember coming to rest and laying there for a while, then getting up to check the car and the accident site. I was fine, though a little shaken up. Traffic had stopped in each direction and people were swarming around the car. The driver got out, completely white. I looked at the dent and my bike, crumpled and considerably shorter than it had ever been from one end to the other. People said they had seen sparks when the collision happened. I told the driver, looking at the dent, "I'm sorry about your car." He said in a high voice, "Never mind about the car! Are you all right?" I said I was fine. I felt pretty wobbly, though, and someone took me the rest of the way home. Later, I took the bike into our local shop, which was a good one. The guy behind the counter turned around from the bike he was working on, and when he saw what I had carried in, he put down the wrench, came around the counter, put his hand on my shoulder and said firmly but gently, "My friend, that bike is history." I would be dead without my helmet. Bikes are not just for tooling around parks slowly, looking at the scenery. And even when you think they are, or just vehicles for ambling gently from place to place, things can turn ugly in an unexpected way very, very fast. *Wear your helmet.*
Darn browser! Went to the wrong thread!
I'd be dead without mine. Picture this: me moving about 30 miles per hour down a long straight hill in the Bay area, pedaling hard, and misjudging the light I see changing on the side street, I plow my bike full-on into the side of a car turning right in front of me. The 100+ feet of skid marks I left on the asphalt before correctly determining that I would not be able to stop were not enough to avoid the collision. About 30 feet before my bike slammed into the side of the vehicle, I stood up on the left side pedal, timed my departure, and pushed off, jumping from it in time to fly through the air just behind the car as my bike proceeded ahead. It was a cool day, and I had a jacket on. I sailed upside down, face up past the car and landed on my back and head, sliding along the ground on my jacket and helmet for a good 20 or 30 feet farther down the slope. I remember coming to rest and laying there for a while, then getting up to check the car and the accident site. I was fine, though a little shaken up. Traffic had stopped in each direction and people were swarming around the car. The driver got out, completely white. I looked at the dent and my bike, crumpled and considerably shorter than it had ever been from one end to the other. People said they had seen sparks when the collision happened. I told the driver, looking at the dent, "I'm sorry about your car." He said in a high voice, "Never mind about the car! Are you all right?" I said I was fine. I felt pretty wobbly, though, and someone took me the rest of the way home. Later, I took the bike into our local shop, which was a good one. The guy behind the counter turned around from the bike he was working on, and when he saw what I had carried in, he put down the wrench, came around the counter, put his hand on my shoulder and said firmly but gently, "My friend, that bike is history." I would be dead without my helmet. Bikes are not just for tooling around parks slowly, looking at the scenery. And even when you think they are, or just vehicles for ambling gently from place to place, things can turn ugly in an unexpected way very, very fast. Wear your helmet.
Apart from the visual clutter that advertising produces, which I find distracting, the cpu load from flash and animated or script-enabled ads is simply not worth the performance impact that it has on my (fairly new, modern) machines. This applies to both laptops, where there is also an impact on battery life, as well as desktops. I don't say this out of speculation; anyone with a small computer with a fan that responds to cpu load can verify it on their own, and I have also measured the effect of turning on various levels of ad-blocking on cpu and disk I/O real-time when making my decisions. Overall, my message to advertisers is: less is more. If you stray too far into technologies that consume resources on the user side of the equation, you will be blocked.
From teh article: "it remains unclear whether caffeine is a ubiquitous contaminant of marine systems and if there is any trend in the distribution of caffeine relative to anthropogenic sources of caffeine contamination." There could be natural sources of caffeine washed into bays and coastal waters. Making the leap from caffeine to coffee contamination is, according to the authors, not justified.
Equipped with lasers, no less, on MARS -- and you want to claim copyright to their video of it? Very anti-Darwinian of you, Scripps, very anti-Darwinian. I wouldn't want to be standing next to you when the next one lands in your vicinity!
Great article. One quick correction from a practitioner in the field: there is plenty of open source software in use in and developed by science. Care for a useful example? The Scientific Linux distribution of Fermilab and CERN is a good example, very accessible to everyone. (And there is that whole World Wide Web thing - not exclusively open source, but still pretty darn useful!)
I already block Flash automatically, as it drags down performance and rarely adds any content.
There are a few cases in which useful content has been designed in Flash, but most of the time it is useless eye candy - and more often than not, just pure advertising. A great way to block most advertising that you do not want is to block Flash. Why would you not want to do that?
If you read the post a bit more slowly and carefully, it may become clearer that the latter part of the is about scientific computing in general.
As it happens, I work in a high performance computing center and use Linux all of the time. Beyond that, Macs account for about half of the personal desktops or laptops used here, with Windows and Linux also represented. What I like best about my OS X laptop is that I can do essentially anything I need to do from it, through it, or via scripts that share between the two.
That having been said, I agree with you that Linux dominates the bulk-computing environments found within high performance computing, despite serious attempts on the part of Microsoft to get traction into this space. To first order, scientific computing IS Linux, with personal machine environments connecting to these systems left to personal choice.
My point remains that Linux is essential for science and that someone going into science will surely be exposed to it and trained in its use. My personal choice for an individual laptop and desktop environment is OS X, and I note that a larger fraction of scientists make this choice than in other fields, as well.