I can prove him wrong with two words: commercial satellites.
I watched a speech to the space society where he stated this message a bit more clearly, I think. Tyson means the Frontier will be "opened", as in "trail blazed" by the governments. Once you can get a person to Mars, then private industry has much more data to make the calculated risks.
There's not much "trailblazing" remaining to be done, as long as we aren't talking about entirely new propulsion technologies that are basically science fiction, especially for high-thrust (i.e. manned spaceflight) requirements. I do think that SpaceX can make manned spaceflight (with chemical rockets) cheaper, if you just look at their integrated approach -- where government-built vehicles have all kinds of "pork barrel" issues, e.g. each stage and each subsystem is produced by a different company, where SpaceX just uses the same engine for the 1st and 2nd stage (just several of them bundled in the first stage), and is free to do what's economically feasible, not what pleases a bunch of senators from different states.
Still, I think space tourism will be the only viable perspective for commercial manned spaceflight for an unforeseeable amount of time. Mining asteroids as a private business, and making a profit out of it, is not doable with chemical propulsion. The launch cost per kilogram isn't the only factor there, what counts would be $/kg for the returned material. And that's just not working out. Any run of the mill asteroid that you'd want to mine weighs more than the entire payload mass launched into space by mankind in its history. And "mining equipment" isn't light-weight either, apart from the fact that you'd first have to make it work electrically in zero-G conditions. And the asteroid has a delta-V of several km/s relative to earth. I think there is no way that the combined cost of retrieving any "rare earth" material from an asteroid is gonna be cheaper than digging it out of the ground somewhere, and perfecting recycling technologies.
I always assume email encryption only makes sense if it's end-to-end, so what does an "encrypted email provider" do? Conceal sender & receiver addresses? Guarantee encrypted transport?
If you're shelling out money, it's not free, is it?
Being forced to buy something you may not need or want just so the other guy doesn't have to take personal responsibility is not free.
The Soviets tried that process. Look how well it worked for them.
Virtually every first-world country in the world "tries" public healthcare systems. And it works pretty well for them. Their life expectancy is on a par with or in some cases higher than the US's, and the cost per capita is lower.
My understanding is that the visual aid for 28L is PAPI, not VASI. Unfortunately, it and the ILS have been out of service since early June because they are moving the threshold for 28L northward, farther away from the seawall. With both ILS and PAPI out, you truly are making a "visual approach".
They stated at one of the NTSB press briefings that the PAPI was operational. It was damaged (and rendered inoperative) by the crash itself.
I still don't get what Nokia gains from the exclusive deal with Microsoft. I understand what Microsoft gains from it, but Nokia? Why don't they just offer their phones with WinPhone AND Android, just like all their competitors? They're just sealing themselves off from a very large part of the market. MS can't possibly pay them so much bribe money as to make this "strategy" worthwhile.
Does this mean a self-signed certificate is more secure than a commercial one?
If you run a server for your own organization, e.g. a VPN service -- sure. If you're setting up a webserver for the general public -- probably not. You'd just scare away 99% of your users because browsers throw glaring red warnings at them. And this FBI/NSA demand doesn't have much to do with signatures anyway -- they want you to hand them your server's private key directly. At which point the signature wouldn't matter much anymore.
Will those "X sux and wayland is the answer" put up some numbers (they don't even have to good ones just something to show future promise) or shut up?
Sometimes when you're fiddling with context menus too much, you manage to lock up the X server completely -- all you can do is move the mouse pointer, which at this point mostly points north-east or has turned into a cross.
Whenever an X client is somehow busy, does something bad or hogs up resources, the whole server freezes, sometimes periodically for half a second every two seconds or so. You can see it e.g. during graphically intensive redraws, or when Chrome loads several tabs simultaneously -- all the animations in the tab headers stop periodically, and the mouse pointer freezes at the same times. When I opened a few Chrome tabs too many lately, the load skyrocketed up to about 60, and the machine was inoperable for 10 minutes, before calmed down again, on its own. This has happened more than once too. These may in part be implementation issues (Xorg being single-threaded and all), and I don't know how well Wayland does in those kinds of situations, all I know is that the OSX display server fares much better. Individual clients may freeze, but the compositor always works, the mouse pointer never freezes, and you never see half-drawn frames or other random artifacts.
The "cablegate" state department documents, including names of US informants around the world, were apparently accessible to.5 percent of the US population...
I think Apple's (or SJob's specifically) issue was more with the toolkit, not with the programming language. They wanted (and still want) people to code the UI (for non-"immersive" apps) in Cocoa Touch, so it looks and feels native in iOS. It doesn't matter so much which programming language is used -- ObjC would be the natural choice, but if you're using some Python, Javascript or Ruby binding for the framework, that's OK too.
Jeez, he gave a talk about this stuff? That figures. "Look, I was in Egypt!" The whole thing just screams "Malte Spitz is important". He's probably just publishing this crap to impress chicks.
Of *course* the NSA is intercepting foreign communications. That is their mission. That is what they are funded for.
Maybe, but Obama said that they don't spy on people lightly, and they only do it to fight terrorism. That kind of doesn't fit with bugging EU offices in Brussels.
Can any real developer explain why having a javascript backend would be any different to any other backend in such a way where something jaw-dropping could only be the result of the javascript backend?
Not "jaw-dropping", but it may enable you to share code (e.g. domain objects, validation, "business code") between server and client.
Perhaps we're asking the wrong questions. Maybe it is true that Google never gave them access to their servers.
Has anyone asked if the government has demanded the TLS private keys? Could Google even answer that question?
As I said, I don't think secret MITM attacks are viable for many connections and large amounts of traffic. And AFAIK some browsers these days (Chrome for sure) have learned from the recent Root CA disasters in that they explicitly expect some "well know" site certificates (and google.com would be one of those), so they wouldn't trust any other certificate that's been been issued to google.com and signed by a trusted root CA.
IMHO this PRISM thing does what we always more or less suspected the NSA is doing -- it intercepts large amounts of public internet traffic, and automatically or semi-automacally tries to extract intelligence from it. A lot of SMTP traffic on the public internet is still unencrypted (even Gmail still accepts incoming SMTP deliveries without requiring STARTTLS or anything like that). So there's no really big surprise, but at least now we know for sure.
The question I've been asking myself is this: Snowden claims that he could "get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards", i.e. that NSA analysts can tap into pretty much any communication and read pretty much any mail that anyone sends. If that's true, why didn't he prove that to the Guardian people before he blew his cover? If I imagine I was someone who could read anyone's mail at will, and I wanted to expose myself to an outside reporter, the least I would do is show that reporter some emails that he wrote to his wife last week, or something. Just to prove my allegations.
If it's really true that the NSA essentially has random access to any Gmail/Apple/MS mail, this means that they either have a direct back door into Google's datacenters, or they're intercepting the communication at some backbone routers (which would probably imply a considerable additional load on the routers' CPUs, and they would have to have the private key to Google's server certificate (or the signing certificate, if they were to perform MITM attacks) -- I think it's well-nigh impossible to do those things in secret for a large number of connections and for an extended period of time). Frankly, I have a hard time believing that this is really what's going on.
So they minimized the number of statistical radiation-induced deaths down to some small value by permanently evacuating an area of hundreds of square miles around the reactor? Still doesn't sound like a trivial thing to me.
So long as Microsoft is profitable, it will always be around regardless of other parties. Microsoft will make iPhone and iPad apps if that's what it takes.
They wouldn't be in the privileged position that they're in now though. It would be much harder for them to lock customers and developers into their products. They would probably survive, but they would shrink substantially. MS's strategy always revolved around controlling the platform, not just writing software.
What makes Americans more "valuable" and their violent deaths more noteworthy than pointlessly killed Iraqis, Somalis or, hell, anyone else?
Not more valuable, less common. The media primarily reports rare and unusual events. Somalis and Iraqis getting killed in terrorist strikes happens all the time. The same is true for people dying from cancer in the west (and those people aren't less "valuable" either). People getting killed in bomb attacks on western streets is rare. Hence the media attention.
Slashdot Mirror
I can prove him wrong with two words: commercial satellites.
I watched a speech to the space society where he stated this message a bit more clearly, I think. Tyson means the Frontier will be "opened", as in "trail blazed" by the governments. Once you can get a person to Mars, then private industry has much more data to make the calculated risks.
There's not much "trailblazing" remaining to be done, as long as we aren't talking about entirely new propulsion technologies that are basically science fiction, especially for high-thrust (i.e. manned spaceflight) requirements. I do think that SpaceX can make manned spaceflight (with chemical rockets) cheaper, if you just look at their integrated approach -- where government-built vehicles have all kinds of "pork barrel" issues, e.g. each stage and each subsystem is produced by a different company, where SpaceX just uses the same engine for the 1st and 2nd stage (just several of them bundled in the first stage), and is free to do what's economically feasible, not what pleases a bunch of senators from different states.
Still, I think space tourism will be the only viable perspective for commercial manned spaceflight for an unforeseeable amount of time. Mining asteroids as a private business, and making a profit out of it, is not doable with chemical propulsion. The launch cost per kilogram isn't the only factor there, what counts would be $/kg for the returned material. And that's just not working out. Any run of the mill asteroid that you'd want to mine weighs more than the entire payload mass launched into space by mankind in its history. And "mining equipment" isn't light-weight either, apart from the fact that you'd first have to make it work electrically in zero-G conditions. And the asteroid has a delta-V of several km/s relative to earth. I think there is no way that the combined cost of retrieving any "rare earth" material from an asteroid is gonna be cheaper than digging it out of the ground somewhere, and perfecting recycling technologies.
I always assume email encryption only makes sense if it's end-to-end, so what does an "encrypted email provider" do? Conceal sender & receiver addresses? Guarantee encrypted transport?
If you're shelling out money, it's not free, is it?
Being forced to buy something you may not need or want just so the other guy doesn't have to take personal responsibility is not free.
The Soviets tried that process. Look how well it worked for them.
Virtually every first-world country in the world "tries" public healthcare systems. And it works pretty well for them. Their life expectancy is on a par with or in some cases higher than the US's, and the cost per capita is lower.
My understanding is that the visual aid for 28L is PAPI, not VASI. Unfortunately, it and the ILS have been out of service since early June because they are moving the threshold for 28L northward, farther away from the seawall. With both ILS and PAPI out, you truly are making a "visual approach".
They stated at one of the NTSB press briefings that the PAPI was operational. It was damaged (and rendered inoperative) by the crash itself.
BSD is the core of OSX and it's even older.
VMS pre-dated BSD substantially, and NT is basically a rewrite of the VMS kernel.
...as opposed to OSX, which actually shares and reuses code from the BSD kernel.
I still don't get what Nokia gains from the exclusive deal with Microsoft. I understand what Microsoft gains from it, but Nokia? Why don't they just offer their phones with WinPhone AND Android, just like all their competitors? They're just sealing themselves off from a very large part of the market. MS can't possibly pay them so much bribe money as to make this "strategy" worthwhile.
Does this mean a self-signed certificate is more secure than a commercial one?
If you run a server for your own organization, e.g. a VPN service -- sure. If you're setting up a webserver for the general public -- probably not. You'd just scare away 99% of your users because browsers throw glaring red warnings at them. And this FBI/NSA demand doesn't have much to do with signatures anyway -- they want you to hand them your server's private key directly. At which point the signature wouldn't matter much anymore.
Will those "X sux and wayland is the answer" put up some numbers (they don't even have to good ones just something to show future promise) or shut up?
Sometimes when you're fiddling with context menus too much, you manage to lock up the X server completely -- all you can do is move the mouse pointer, which at this point mostly points north-east or has turned into a cross.
Whenever an X client is somehow busy, does something bad or hogs up resources, the whole server freezes, sometimes periodically for half a second every two seconds or so. You can see it e.g. during graphically intensive redraws, or when Chrome loads several tabs simultaneously -- all the animations in the tab headers stop periodically, and the mouse pointer freezes at the same times. When I opened a few Chrome tabs too many lately, the load skyrocketed up to about 60, and the machine was inoperable for 10 minutes, before calmed down again, on its own. This has happened more than once too. These may in part be implementation issues (Xorg being single-threaded and all), and I don't know how well Wayland does in those kinds of situations, all I know is that the OSX display server fares much better. Individual clients may freeze, but the compositor always works, the mouse pointer never freezes, and you never see half-drawn frames or other random artifacts.
The Dreamliner 787 is so advanced ... it crashes without even needing to leave the jetway.
Makes evacuations a whole lot easier!
The Li-Ion batteries that have caused the Dreamliner so much trouble are in the lower front part of the plane, below the front doors.
Apparently there is a Li-Ion battery in the back of the plane too, albeit located more towards the bottom of the fuselage.
All access is limited to a "Need to Know" basis.
The "cablegate" state department documents, including names of US informants around the world, were apparently accessible to .5 percent of the US population...
I think Apple's (or SJob's specifically) issue was more with the toolkit, not with the programming language. They wanted (and still want) people to code the UI (for non-"immersive" apps) in Cocoa Touch, so it looks and feels native in iOS. It doesn't matter so much which programming language is used -- ObjC would be the natural choice, but if you're using some Python, Javascript or Ruby binding for the framework, that's OK too.
http://www.ted.com/talks/malte_spitz_your_phone_company_is_watching.html
Old news.
Jeez, he gave a talk about this stuff? That figures. "Look, I was in Egypt!" The whole thing just screams "Malte Spitz is important". He's probably just publishing this crap to impress chicks.
Of *course* the NSA is intercepting foreign communications. That is their mission. That is what they are funded for.
Maybe, but Obama said that they don't spy on people lightly, and they only do it to fight terrorism. That kind of doesn't fit with bugging EU offices in Brussels.
Can any real developer explain why having a javascript backend would be any different to any other backend in such a way where something jaw-dropping could only be the result of the javascript backend?
Not "jaw-dropping", but it may enable you to share code (e.g. domain objects, validation, "business code") between server and client.
Perhaps we're asking the wrong questions. Maybe it is true that Google never gave them access to their servers.
Has anyone asked if the government has demanded the TLS private keys? Could Google even answer that question?
As I said, I don't think secret MITM attacks are viable for many connections and large amounts of traffic. And AFAIK some browsers these days (Chrome for sure) have learned from the recent Root CA disasters in that they explicitly expect some "well know" site certificates (and google.com would be one of those), so they wouldn't trust any other certificate that's been been issued to google.com and signed by a trusted root CA.
IMHO this PRISM thing does what we always more or less suspected the NSA is doing -- it intercepts large amounts of public internet traffic, and automatically or semi-automacally tries to extract intelligence from it. A lot of SMTP traffic on the public internet is still unencrypted (even Gmail still accepts incoming SMTP deliveries without requiring STARTTLS or anything like that). So there's no really big surprise, but at least now we know for sure.
The question I've been asking myself is this: Snowden claims that he could "get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards", i.e. that NSA analysts can tap into pretty much any communication and read pretty much any mail that anyone sends. If that's true, why didn't he prove that to the Guardian people before he blew his cover? If I imagine I was someone who could read anyone's mail at will, and I wanted to expose myself to an outside reporter, the least I would do is show that reporter some emails that he wrote to his wife last week, or something. Just to prove my allegations.
If it's really true that the NSA essentially has random access to any Gmail/Apple/MS mail, this means that they either have a direct back door into Google's datacenters, or they're intercepting the communication at some backbone routers (which would probably imply a considerable additional load on the routers' CPUs, and they would have to have the private key to Google's server certificate (or the signing certificate, if they were to perform MITM attacks) -- I think it's well-nigh impossible to do those things in secret for a large number of connections and for an extended period of time). Frankly, I have a hard time believing that this is really what's going on.
So they minimized the number of statistical radiation-induced deaths down to some small value by permanently evacuating an area of hundreds of square miles around the reactor? Still doesn't sound like a trivial thing to me.
So long as Microsoft is profitable, it will always be around regardless of other parties. Microsoft will make iPhone and iPad apps if that's what it takes.
They wouldn't be in the privileged position that they're in now though. It would be much harder for them to lock customers and developers into their products. They would probably survive, but they would shrink substantially. MS's strategy always revolved around controlling the platform, not just writing software.
Tablets aren't meant to replace PC's,.
In my parents' household, they have all but done so.
Yeah. Better tell Capt. Sullenberger how a flesh and bone based craft 1/5 of the weight of this drone can't cause catastrophic failure of an airliner.
That wasn't "a" flesh and bone based aircraft.. It would've taken at least two of those to take out both engines.
I know this is a joke, but I don't think Larry Page has ever yelled at a person in his life.
Maybe at his mom, when he was little.
Has the customer been informed already? How does he or she take it?
This "incident" happened in a state government (in the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), not in the federal government.
What makes Americans more "valuable" and their violent deaths more noteworthy than pointlessly killed Iraqis, Somalis or, hell, anyone else?
Not more valuable, less common. The media primarily reports rare and unusual events. Somalis and Iraqis getting killed in terrorist strikes happens all the time. The same is true for people dying from cancer in the west (and those people aren't less "valuable" either). People getting killed in bomb attacks on western streets is rare. Hence the media attention.