Tor does NOT provide a secure or encrypted connection, it provides an ANONYMOUS connection, which is entirely different. Unless you encrypt the data you send over the network yourself, it will be sent in cleartext readable by anyone. If you don't want someone looking into your packets, sending them over Tor to bounce among a number of untrusted hosts is not a very good idea.
So how legally enforceable are all those disclaimers I get in the footers of e-mails warning me that the e-mail is confidential and if I am not the intended recipient of the e-mail I am required to delete it immediately?
Why don't more domain owners take the reasonable step of registering typod variations on their name at the time they set up the property? While obviously this isn't practical for tiny or personal sites, it's reasonable to expect that a major company with the funding isn't going to balk at an extra few hundred dollars to get all common variations on the domain they want. Honestly, if you don't claim the name, you have no right co complain when someone else registers it and puts whatever they want on it.
Boosting the bass and treble is a popular way of making music sound "louder" and more energetic, but it also promotes listening fatigue, disturbs the intended mix, and will likely cause severe distortion. The RIAA curve just compressed the bass, and the RIAA equalizer (or a RIAA phono amp) restored it to pre-compression levels.
The bass wasn't eliminated, it was simply compressed with what was called the "RIAA curve." You used a box (a RIAA equalizer) between the output of the record player and the input of your real amp that decompressed the signal and restored the bass. It is true that a hell of a lot of people tried to play records without the RIAA equalizer and got terrible sound, but that was user error, just like installing speakers out of phase.
Disclaimer: I am a VeriSign employee, but this post is solely my own opinions, made off-the-clock on my own time. I work in a completely separate division of the company than the one responsible for this product, and in fact this Slashdot story was the first I've heard of it.
What do you have against VeriSign? As far as I know, the only "bad thing" the company has done is SiteFinder. While that was a very serious breach of the trust the community placed in VeriSign as a DNS provider, it did get dropped relatively quickly and I don't think the company is stupid enough to try anything like that again. The rest of VeriSign's products and services seem to be oriented towards enhancing security, both for end-users and large companies, and providing critical services (telecomm back-end, etc). I'd be interested to hear if the company has a deserved reputation for things I'm not aware of.
AM2 really is an excellent platform, it consolidated AMD's Value, Mid-Range, and High-End market segments into a single platform. The reason it's not viable in the larger market-wide Enthusiast, Performance, and High-End segments is simply that Core 2 Duo rapes it. If you're already considering spending the money for a higher-end Athlon 64 X2 or FX processor, you can move to a Core 2 Duo-based platform that will destroy the AMD options performance-wise by a margin that is nearly unprecedented while still providing good power and heat usage. Basically, if the market was perfectly rational and had no transition times, all systems would be AMD AM2-based until you reached high enough prices that it was cost-effective to use a Core 2 Duo, and the P4 and Celerons would be merely a bad memory. AMD's aquisition of ATI helps it in this regard, as ATI has been making some chipsets that are very reliable, very fast, and rather inexpensive. ATI definitely has the best integrated graphics solution in the laptop market, and AMD's Turion 64 X2 is more competitive here than the Athlon 64 X2 is in the desktop arena.
I sometimes wonder this too. I see people talking about the Apple that repaired their computer for free with no trouble, or the Apple that replaced their computer when it failed two weeks after purchase and replacement parts weren't available. Then I spend all day dealing with the Apple that denies obviously covered repairs under warranty, the Apple that has a two-month backorder for a logic board and ships a defective unit when one finally arrives, and the Apple that refuses to cover a failed logic board replacement under a recall because the logic board with PHYSICALLY EXPLODED COMPONENTS doesn't exhibit the pattern of lines on the display that Apple requires.
Have you ever used iTunes (especially with an iPod), or the Finder? Since you haven't, I'll explain what you're in for. You'll find that doing exactly what a "typical user" would be expected to do, in exactly the way Apple expects you to, is super easy and intuitive, and probably rather fast. You'll also find that if you ever want to do anything else, you're boned, because the entire application and platform is architected to force you to do simple tasks The Apple Way.
It is a testament to Apple's marketing engine that they've built a brand identity and image that people buy into, despite it being entirely fictional. Even on Slashdot, where people are presumably technically savvy and have actually USED Macs, the Apple myth goes unchallenged.
Apple has constructed this idea that Macs are easy to use, trouble-free, capable, and that if you use a Mac you are smarter than others for choosing the Apple platform.
The problem here is that OSX isn't really an intuitive, easy to use operating system. Apple's idea of an intuitive design is to remove so much functionality that there's really a limited number of operations you can perform, thus not much to get confused about. The problem here is that there's really only one "Apple approved" way to do anything, and if you need to deviate from this for any reason, you'll find that the design offers no flexibility. Compare and contrast working with files in Windows Explorer to working with files in the Finder; Windows Explorer is faster, more intuitive, and vastly more functional. I've had the experience of teaching new computer users how to manage their files in both Windows XP and Mac OS X 10.4, in every case OSX is longer and more frustrating to learn.
Another huge myth is that Mac's are trouble-free. This is absolutely ridiculous. Apple hardware is notoriously unreliable, and repairs notoriously complex. It's a good thing that OSX is so easy to reinstall, because users are expected to do it a lot.
Apple is not the friendly, smart alternative to Microsoft that they want you to believe it is. They are a cut-throat corporation with a vastly more anti-consumer stance, that simply spends uncountable millions of dollars per year on advertising to try to convince you that they offer innovation and an end to the problems facing Windows users. Instead, they're preying on the ignorant and those who have a desperate need for a corporation to tell them that they're cool.
So, in closing, if you want to support Linux as an alternative to Vista, awesome. But if you think Apple is going to offer any kind of alternative that will allow you to avoid the trouble and abuse you've become used to from Microsoft, think again.
For the United States to enter a war, Congress must exercise their constitutional authority to declare war. They have chosen not to do so.
Actually they have. First, the US is at war "with those responsible for the Sept. 11'th attacks" and it is at war with Iraq. Both bills specifically invoke the War Powers Resolution.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the use of military force is not a declaration of war, nor does it carry any legal weight. It's entirely symbolic, as the president requires no consent of congress to use the Military however he wishes. He's the commander in chief, the actions of the military are under his sole discretion. A DECLARATION OF WAR requires an act of congress. This was just congresss saying "Sure, we agree with you, go ahead and invade Iraq. We can't stop you and we don't plan to try."
I work in a computer store and service center as a technician, and it hurts me every time I have to tell a customer that Norton is their best option. McAfee, Norton's only real competitor, makes Norton look positively well-designed and bug-free. When Comcast started giving out McAfee SecurityCenter for free with service we saw a steady flood of computers coming in that had experienced extreme registry damage to the point of requiring a wipe and reload just from the McAfee install. Norton merely breaks Internet connectivity. I also haven't seen a system with both a working, updated install of Norton and Antispyware protection of some kind coming in with preventable spyware infections, so the job at least does get done.
I do have to admit that it's horrible that you need more than 256MB of RAM just to Run Norton and Windows XP at the same time and still have free RAM left. Also, why on Earth would they block all HTTPS traffic by default in Norton Internet Security?! It makes no sense! I'm also pretty pissed off about the fact that renewing your Norton subscription online, while it costs the same as buying a new copy retail, doesn't get you updates to the software, just more virus definitions. Despite these problems, there still aren't any good options for customers other than the one-two punch of Norton AV 2006 and Counter-Spy.
It's most certainly possible. It's called uploading the same chunk to 2 different people. Again, this is called seeding, and is usually considered a good thing.
Either you don't understand how bittorrent works or you don't understand my point. The only way a client can download data is if it is uploaded by another client. Thus, the total amount of data downloaded on a torrent will ALWAYS precisely equal the amount of data downloaded, as every altruistic seeder is balanced by a selfish leecher. The ratio for the torrent as a whole will ALWAYS be 1:1. If it isn't, you know that someone is falsifying their stats.
Um, it's called "seeding" after you finish downloading. Usually, that's considered a _good_ thing, because if nobody uploaded more than they download, the files couldn't be distributed.
I was referring to the totals for an entire torrent, not an individual user. There's no possible way for the total amount of uploaded data to be greater than the total amount of downloaded data. If it is, you know that someone is padding their upload stats.
A fix that several of the larger trackers I've used have put in place is to track both upload and download stats for everyone on the torrent. It quickly becomes obvious that someone is cheating if the total amount of uploaded data is greater than the total amount of downloaded data. This makes it rather trivial for admins to track down and ban people who cheat in this manner.
This system could certainly be broken by having clients intentionally amplify reporting of the amounts they upload, but there's no incentive to do this. Amplifying your uploaded amount or shrinking the downloaded amount is the only form of stat cheating that confers any sort of benefit.
Just because you make up a freedom doesn't mean you have it.
I can say I'm free to indecently expose myself, but if it's not legal, they can still arrest me for it, so it doesn't count as a right.
Consenting adults have the right to do anything they want with themselves or other consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. When you go out in public, naturally some limitations must apply so as not to impinge on the rights of others. That said, you can be arrested for lots of things that you have a right to do, this is simply a reflection of the fact that no government is perfect and moral, not a lack of rights.
As long as you're talking about The United States of America, you're right. However, we're talking about Austrailia, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply there. That's my point.
The thing is, the Bill of Rights doesn't grant freedoms to people, it simply recognizes that these freedoms exist. All people, by virtue of their humanity, have these basic freedoms. No government has the right to take them away.
Not all countries have freedom of speech. I don't know what Austrailia's stand on this is, but it's a tad parochial to assume that the US Bill of Rights holds everywhere.
Americans don't have freedom of speech because of the first ammendment, Americans have the first ammendment because of freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of the basic freedoms that apply to all people everywhere; they cannot be legislated away just because a particular government or ruler doesn't like them.
Google can toss a set of statistics towards the cops showing the sheer amount of accesses from everywhere _ELSE_ compared to Australia. That overrides the majority requirement, I'd think.
This is probably referring to the Google Australia site. Still, it's enraging that Australia, or any other country, thinks it's acceptable to infringe on people's fundamental freedom of speech.
Microsofts Windows Genuine Advantage system is unable to actually identify pirated copies of Windows. Anyone who installed Windows XP using a unique key created by a key generator, which is everyone who didn't just download an ISO and use the CD key in the.NFO, skates neatly through the piracy check. Note also that anyone who ISN'T running a unique key can also change it, via instructions that are conveniently placed on the Microsoft website.
Last I checked, there was also a fallback verification system you could use if you refused to let them install their ActiveX controls that asked you questions about what your CD key looked like. This was easily passable by anyone who had ever even SEEN a Windows XP retail CD.
Your points are certainly valid, but it's also very expensive to develop an entirely new cable modem standard, including the development and purchase of cable modems to go on customer premises and inside the ISP racks at every headend. In this case, we already have fiber run to within a relatively small distance of the targets, so if customers really NEED massive bandwidth, this seems to be the way to go.
Why does CableVision feel the need to create a new proprietary standard when we have a perfectly good standard already: DOCSIS, the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification. DOCSIS 2.0 offers 38mbps down and 30.72mbps up, which ought to be plenty for everybody. If it's not, get another channel and bond them together until you have enough. DOCSIS 3.0 will even handle the channel bonding FOR YOU.
Since cable providers already run fiber until the CMTS, which is usually within the last mile, why not run fiber the rest of the way or live with 38/30mbps service rather than creating a new proprietary cable modem standard?
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright infringement is not theft, but taking people's money for goods and then not providing them is. Are we clear now?
Tor does NOT provide a secure or encrypted connection, it provides an ANONYMOUS connection, which is entirely different. Unless you encrypt the data you send over the network yourself, it will be sent in cleartext readable by anyone. If you don't want someone looking into your packets, sending them over Tor to bounce among a number of untrusted hosts is not a very good idea.
So how legally enforceable are all those disclaimers I get in the footers of e-mails warning me that the e-mail is confidential and if I am not the intended recipient of the e-mail I am required to delete it immediately?
Why don't more domain owners take the reasonable step of registering typod variations on their name at the time they set up the property? While obviously this isn't practical for tiny or personal sites, it's reasonable to expect that a major company with the funding isn't going to balk at an extra few hundred dollars to get all common variations on the domain they want. Honestly, if you don't claim the name, you have no right co complain when someone else registers it and puts whatever they want on it.
Boosting the bass and treble is a popular way of making music sound "louder" and more energetic, but it also promotes listening fatigue, disturbs the intended mix, and will likely cause severe distortion. The RIAA curve just compressed the bass, and the RIAA equalizer (or a RIAA phono amp) restored it to pre-compression levels.
The bass wasn't eliminated, it was simply compressed with what was called the "RIAA curve." You used a box (a RIAA equalizer) between the output of the record player and the input of your real amp that decompressed the signal and restored the bass. It is true that a hell of a lot of people tried to play records without the RIAA equalizer and got terrible sound, but that was user error, just like installing speakers out of phase.
Disclaimer: I am a VeriSign employee, but this post is solely my own opinions, made off-the-clock on my own time. I work in a completely separate division of the company than the one responsible for this product, and in fact this Slashdot story was the first I've heard of it.
What do you have against VeriSign? As far as I know, the only "bad thing" the company has done is SiteFinder. While that was a very serious breach of the trust the community placed in VeriSign as a DNS provider, it did get dropped relatively quickly and I don't think the company is stupid enough to try anything like that again. The rest of VeriSign's products and services seem to be oriented towards enhancing security, both for end-users and large companies, and providing critical services (telecomm back-end, etc). I'd be interested to hear if the company has a deserved reputation for things I'm not aware of.
AM2 really is an excellent platform, it consolidated AMD's Value, Mid-Range, and High-End market segments into a single platform. The reason it's not viable in the larger market-wide Enthusiast, Performance, and High-End segments is simply that Core 2 Duo rapes it. If you're already considering spending the money for a higher-end Athlon 64 X2 or FX processor, you can move to a Core 2 Duo-based platform that will destroy the AMD options performance-wise by a margin that is nearly unprecedented while still providing good power and heat usage. Basically, if the market was perfectly rational and had no transition times, all systems would be AMD AM2-based until you reached high enough prices that it was cost-effective to use a Core 2 Duo, and the P4 and Celerons would be merely a bad memory. AMD's aquisition of ATI helps it in this regard, as ATI has been making some chipsets that are very reliable, very fast, and rather inexpensive. ATI definitely has the best integrated graphics solution in the laptop market, and AMD's Turion 64 X2 is more competitive here than the Athlon 64 X2 is in the desktop arena.
I sometimes wonder this too. I see people talking about the Apple that repaired their computer for free with no trouble, or the Apple that replaced their computer when it failed two weeks after purchase and replacement parts weren't available. Then I spend all day dealing with the Apple that denies obviously covered repairs under warranty, the Apple that has a two-month backorder for a logic board and ships a defective unit when one finally arrives, and the Apple that refuses to cover a failed logic board replacement under a recall because the logic board with PHYSICALLY EXPLODED COMPONENTS doesn't exhibit the pattern of lines on the display that Apple requires.
Have you ever used iTunes (especially with an iPod), or the Finder? Since you haven't, I'll explain what you're in for. You'll find that doing exactly what a "typical user" would be expected to do, in exactly the way Apple expects you to, is super easy and intuitive, and probably rather fast. You'll also find that if you ever want to do anything else, you're boned, because the entire application and platform is architected to force you to do simple tasks The Apple Way.
It is a testament to Apple's marketing engine that they've built a brand identity and image that people buy into, despite it being entirely fictional. Even on Slashdot, where people are presumably technically savvy and have actually USED Macs, the Apple myth goes unchallenged.
Apple has constructed this idea that Macs are easy to use, trouble-free, capable, and that if you use a Mac you are smarter than others for choosing the Apple platform.
The problem here is that OSX isn't really an intuitive, easy to use operating system. Apple's idea of an intuitive design is to remove so much functionality that there's really a limited number of operations you can perform, thus not much to get confused about. The problem here is that there's really only one "Apple approved" way to do anything, and if you need to deviate from this for any reason, you'll find that the design offers no flexibility. Compare and contrast working with files in Windows Explorer to working with files in the Finder; Windows Explorer is faster, more intuitive, and vastly more functional. I've had the experience of teaching new computer users how to manage their files in both Windows XP and Mac OS X 10.4, in every case OSX is longer and more frustrating to learn.
Another huge myth is that Mac's are trouble-free. This is absolutely ridiculous. Apple hardware is notoriously unreliable, and repairs notoriously complex. It's a good thing that OSX is so easy to reinstall, because users are expected to do it a lot.
Apple is not the friendly, smart alternative to Microsoft that they want you to believe it is. They are a cut-throat corporation with a vastly more anti-consumer stance, that simply spends uncountable millions of dollars per year on advertising to try to convince you that they offer innovation and an end to the problems facing Windows users. Instead, they're preying on the ignorant and those who have a desperate need for a corporation to tell them that they're cool.
So, in closing, if you want to support Linux as an alternative to Vista, awesome. But if you think Apple is going to offer any kind of alternative that will allow you to avoid the trouble and abuse you've become used to from Microsoft, think again.
For the United States to enter a war, Congress must exercise their constitutional authority to declare war. They have chosen not to do so.
Actually they have. First, the US is at war "with those responsible for the Sept. 11'th attacks" and it is at war with Iraq. Both bills specifically invoke the War Powers Resolution.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the use of military force is not a declaration of war, nor does it carry any legal weight. It's entirely symbolic, as the president requires no consent of congress to use the Military however he wishes. He's the commander in chief, the actions of the military are under his sole discretion. A DECLARATION OF WAR requires an act of congress. This was just congresss saying "Sure, we agree with you, go ahead and invade Iraq. We can't stop you and we don't plan to try."
I work in a computer store and service center as a technician, and it hurts me every time I have to tell a customer that Norton is their best option. McAfee, Norton's only real competitor, makes Norton look positively well-designed and bug-free. When Comcast started giving out McAfee SecurityCenter for free with service we saw a steady flood of computers coming in that had experienced extreme registry damage to the point of requiring a wipe and reload just from the McAfee install. Norton merely breaks Internet connectivity. I also haven't seen a system with both a working, updated install of Norton and Antispyware protection of some kind coming in with preventable spyware infections, so the job at least does get done.
I do have to admit that it's horrible that you need more than 256MB of RAM just to Run Norton and Windows XP at the same time and still have free RAM left. Also, why on Earth would they block all HTTPS traffic by default in Norton Internet Security?! It makes no sense! I'm also pretty pissed off about the fact that renewing your Norton subscription online, while it costs the same as buying a new copy retail, doesn't get you updates to the software, just more virus definitions. Despite these problems, there still aren't any good options for customers other than the one-two punch of Norton AV 2006 and Counter-Spy.
It's most certainly possible. It's called uploading the same chunk to 2 different people. Again, this is called seeding, and is usually considered a good thing.
Either you don't understand how bittorrent works or you don't understand my point. The only way a client can download data is if it is uploaded by another client. Thus, the total amount of data downloaded on a torrent will ALWAYS precisely equal the amount of data downloaded, as every altruistic seeder is balanced by a selfish leecher. The ratio for the torrent as a whole will ALWAYS be 1:1. If it isn't, you know that someone is falsifying their stats.
Um, it's called "seeding" after you finish downloading. Usually, that's considered a _good_ thing, because if nobody uploaded more than they download, the files couldn't be distributed.
I was referring to the totals for an entire torrent, not an individual user. There's no possible way for the total amount of uploaded data to be greater than the total amount of downloaded data. If it is, you know that someone is padding their upload stats.A fix that several of the larger trackers I've used have put in place is to track both upload and download stats for everyone on the torrent. It quickly becomes obvious that someone is cheating if the total amount of uploaded data is greater than the total amount of downloaded data. This makes it rather trivial for admins to track down and ban people who cheat in this manner.
This system could certainly be broken by having clients intentionally amplify reporting of the amounts they upload, but there's no incentive to do this. Amplifying your uploaded amount or shrinking the downloaded amount is the only form of stat cheating that confers any sort of benefit.
Just because you make up a freedom doesn't mean you have it. I can say I'm free to indecently expose myself, but if it's not legal, they can still arrest me for it, so it doesn't count as a right.
Consenting adults have the right to do anything they want with themselves or other consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. When you go out in public, naturally some limitations must apply so as not to impinge on the rights of others. That said, you can be arrested for lots of things that you have a right to do, this is simply a reflection of the fact that no government is perfect and moral, not a lack of rights.
As long as you're talking about The United States of America, you're right. However, we're talking about Austrailia, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply there. That's my point.
The thing is, the Bill of Rights doesn't grant freedoms to people, it simply recognizes that these freedoms exist. All people, by virtue of their humanity, have these basic freedoms. No government has the right to take them away.
Not all countries have freedom of speech. I don't know what Austrailia's stand on this is, but it's a tad parochial to assume that the US Bill of Rights holds everywhere.
Americans don't have freedom of speech because of the first ammendment, Americans have the first ammendment because of freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of the basic freedoms that apply to all people everywhere; they cannot be legislated away just because a particular government or ruler doesn't like them.
Google can toss a set of statistics towards the cops showing the sheer amount of accesses from everywhere _ELSE_ compared to Australia. That overrides the majority requirement, I'd think.
This is probably referring to the Google Australia site. Still, it's enraging that Australia, or any other country, thinks it's acceptable to infringe on people's fundamental freedom of speech.
Well I'll be, you're right. I wonder how long it'll take for someone to find a way around this.
Microsofts Windows Genuine Advantage system is unable to actually identify pirated copies of Windows. Anyone who installed Windows XP using a unique key created by a key generator, which is everyone who didn't just download an ISO and use the CD key in the .NFO, skates neatly through the piracy check. Note also that anyone who ISN'T running a unique key can also change it, via instructions that are conveniently placed on the Microsoft website.
Last I checked, there was also a fallback verification system you could use if you refused to let them install their ActiveX controls that asked you questions about what your CD key looked like. This was easily passable by anyone who had ever even SEEN a Windows XP retail CD.
Your points are certainly valid, but it's also very expensive to develop an entirely new cable modem standard, including the development and purchase of cable modems to go on customer premises and inside the ISP racks at every headend. In this case, we already have fiber run to within a relatively small distance of the targets, so if customers really NEED massive bandwidth, this seems to be the way to go.
Why does CableVision feel the need to create a new proprietary standard when we have a perfectly good standard already: DOCSIS, the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification. DOCSIS 2.0 offers 38mbps down and 30.72mbps up, which ought to be plenty for everybody. If it's not, get another channel and bond them together until you have enough. DOCSIS 3.0 will even handle the channel bonding FOR YOU.
Since cable providers already run fiber until the CMTS, which is usually within the last mile, why not run fiber the rest of the way or live with 38/30mbps service rather than creating a new proprietary cable modem standard?
Do we know that they weren't under a gag order of some kind that legally prevented them from disclosing their cooperation with the police?