Did they say the same thing about biometric authentication (e.g. fingerprints)?
Besides, if you're checking/. right after you break your finger, you might want to get out of the basement more often.:P
While they're at it, they should have the software periodically verify that whoever is typing on the system is (or could be) the same person that is logged in.
But then again, how would I prank people at work when they leave their systems unlocked?
It doesn't necessarily mean that the criminal element is more tech savvy, but in today's world it's quite apparent that data tapes (usually marked with the size of the tapes, i.e. 50GB, 100GB, etc.) usually mean sensitive information - which is usually salable.
Heck, even a crackhead would recognize that and try to sell them for a few bucks, not knowing what he really had.
The real travesty here is the fact that the tapes were unencrypted. The intern himself could've taken the tapes home, read and copied all the data, returned the tapes, and no one would have known.
If you don't want to pay for off-site storage, at least encrypt your data!
Complexity. We'll have to wait a generation or two before the US gets kicked into technological overdrive - We have an aging population of boomers, most of whom are unwilling, unable, or generally uninterested.
Someone who's lived an entire lifetime without a computer generally won't see the true value in such a device. Couple that with the fact that there's no idealogical analog upon which computers are built (contrast: cell phones), and you have the double whammy.
Cell phones are so popular because you use them (almost) just like a regular phone, except you don't have to be at home. This is why the industry exploded so quickly - there was already a ridiculously ubiquitous technology in place, and they expanded that idea.
Once those of us who have grown up around computers are the old-timers, I think we'll start seeing real growth.
I can see it now... countries that contribute the most to global warming will have to pay more for access to the technology...
Solar Net Neutrality 4Eva!
Honest question: can someone explain how this means that Intel is taking AMD as a serious threat?
The only way I see this benefitting Intel is if people are buying Intel motherboard because they can then go with a cheaper third party processor. Is that it, or is there something I'm missing?
Is there really a large enough market out there for this kind of thing to warrant opening the FSB? How many people would really buy a cheaper processor thinking that they'll "upgrade" to an intel later?
The logical question to ask is: why should Linux (or the Linux community) care if it's more and more widespread? What's wrong with the way it is now?
This is not a flame, I'm asking because I'm looking for a good answer, believe it or not.
While your arguments have merit, you would do well to take a look at who is using the internet these days. The majority of users do not care about port forwarding, static IPs, and censorship. They just want to be able to read the news and do a little browsing. This will appeal GREATLY to the casual internet user, who browses very little, but doesn't want to pay for such little usage.
And by the way...
...many of you forward ports through your router/firewall for certain applications (http, ftp...). I can guarantee that the municipality will not support this feature...
Understand what port forwarding is, it wouldn't require any explicit "support" from a vendor, outside of having at least one incoming port open. And even if they did close ALL incoming ports, anyone that cares this can just pay for their access.
And contrary to what you allude to in your first sentence, there are a lot of slashdot readers that wouldn't care. Heck, some of them are just casual browsers...
If he's making so much money, why is he filing for bankruptcy? He's only got 25 employees and a monster bandwidth bill, but I still can't see him spending $15M a year (what he claims to make) on operating costs. A few mil for the bandwidth, some salaries, and a lease (plus other small costs). This guy is slick.
But the most popular are - and holding a company responsible for what people do with their legitimate software is wrong. This argument has been made before. No one sues Smith & Wesson because their product was used in a shooting. I think this is good news for P2P.
But you, the consumer, are paying for that bandwidth. As a customer of Vonage, I can tell you that it's not even that much - 90kbps is the HIGHEST quality setting. If I'm paying the cable / telephone / ISP company for a certain amount of bandwidth, I should be able to use that bandwidth as I see fit, as long as it conforms with the customer agreement. As yet, I have not seen an agreement that says "I will not use VoIP services on this connection."
You work for a phone company, I bet. or maybe a cable company...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's also a defensive measure. An offensive measure would be more like block traffic to certain sites ahead of time.
IP address are not latitude and longitude. I'm so glad they don't think like that.
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense.
"...and they tried to hit us with a DDoS, so we totally pwned those script kiddies. It wasn't hard, they were teh suk..."
Then Clippy pops up.
Hi! It looks like your finger is broken! Would you like help filling out your insurance claim?
|Yes| |No|
I'd be much happier if Blackberries had Breathalyzers before they allow people to email me at 2 AM. Good grief!
Did they say the same thing about biometric authentication (e.g. fingerprints)? Besides, if you're checking /. right after you break your finger, you might want to get out of the basement more often. :P
While they're at it, they should have the software periodically verify that whoever is typing on the system is (or could be) the same person that is logged in.
But then again, how would I prank people at work when they leave their systems unlocked?
It doesn't necessarily mean that the criminal element is more tech savvy, but in today's world it's quite apparent that data tapes (usually marked with the size of the tapes, i.e. 50GB, 100GB, etc.) usually mean sensitive information - which is usually salable. Heck, even a crackhead would recognize that and try to sell them for a few bucks, not knowing what he really had. The real travesty here is the fact that the tapes were unencrypted. The intern himself could've taken the tapes home, read and copied all the data, returned the tapes, and no one would have known. If you don't want to pay for off-site storage, at least encrypt your data!
Are they counting pirated copies?
There are plenty of posters here with below average IQ's! :P
Complexity. We'll have to wait a generation or two before the US gets kicked into technological overdrive - We have an aging population of boomers, most of whom are unwilling, unable, or generally uninterested. Someone who's lived an entire lifetime without a computer generally won't see the true value in such a device. Couple that with the fact that there's no idealogical analog upon which computers are built (contrast: cell phones), and you have the double whammy. Cell phones are so popular because you use them (almost) just like a regular phone, except you don't have to be at home. This is why the industry exploded so quickly - there was already a ridiculously ubiquitous technology in place, and they expanded that idea. Once those of us who have grown up around computers are the old-timers, I think we'll start seeing real growth.
Ted Stevens is gearing up for a new diatribe...
I can see it now... countries that contribute the most to global warming will have to pay more for access to the technology... Solar Net Neutrality 4Eva!
Honest question: can someone explain how this means that Intel is taking AMD as a serious threat? The only way I see this benefitting Intel is if people are buying Intel motherboard because they can then go with a cheaper third party processor. Is that it, or is there something I'm missing? Is there really a large enough market out there for this kind of thing to warrant opening the FSB? How many people would really buy a cheaper processor thinking that they'll "upgrade" to an intel later?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG That's why.
The logical question to ask is: why should Linux (or the Linux community) care if it's more and more widespread? What's wrong with the way it is now? This is not a flame, I'm asking because I'm looking for a good answer, believe it or not.
Why is this news? Articles like this have been around for nearly 10 years now...
You're forgetting about existing "open source" hardware and software - if you already have the capability, how is this going to stop you?
When people stop buying them every 6-18 months.
And by the way...
Understand what port forwarding is, it wouldn't require any explicit "support" from a vendor, outside of having at least one incoming port open. And even if they did close ALL incoming ports, anyone that cares this can just pay for their access.
And contrary to what you allude to in your first sentence, there are a lot of slashdot readers that wouldn't care. Heck, some of them are just casual browsers...
here's the link, for all you lazy clickers
Scotty2Hottie.
If he's making so much money, why is he filing for bankruptcy? He's only got 25 employees and a monster bandwidth bill, but I still can't see him spending $15M a year (what he claims to make) on operating costs. A few mil for the bandwidth, some salaries, and a lease (plus other small costs). This guy is slick.
So if I send one email every day for a year, someone will pay me a dollar? w00t!
But the most popular are - and holding a company responsible for what people do with their legitimate software is wrong. This argument has been made before. No one sues Smith & Wesson because their product was used in a shooting. I think this is good news for P2P.
FYI - In the iTunes burning options, you have a choice of burning a Music CD, a Data CD, or an mp3 CD.
Just thought you should know.
But you, the consumer, are paying for that bandwidth. As a customer of Vonage, I can tell you that it's not even that much - 90kbps is the HIGHEST quality setting. If I'm paying the cable / telephone / ISP company for a certain amount of bandwidth, I should be able to use that bandwidth as I see fit, as long as it conforms with the customer agreement. As yet, I have not seen an agreement that says "I will not use VoIP services on this connection."
You work for a phone company, I bet. or maybe a cable company...