Ummmm.... I think you're missing the point. As I understand the reviews, both here and on Barnes and Noble's website, the author is not talking about implementing new cryptographic algorithms or processes. He is simply discussing their use in a database environment.
It is entirely possible to, say, use the Blowfish algorithm to encrypt all of the data in a specific table without being an expert in cryptography.
Unfortunately, the review didn't go into enough detail to say this for certain, but I expect that these concepts will enhance security, not hurt it.
Maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but I generally don't buy individual songs from a subscription service. Instead, I buy the CD's and rip to Q6 OGG for my (and my wife's) players. She has a Neuros 1 20 gb player and I have an iAudio X5 20gb. Both players have internal FM receivers, and both support OGG. Both also report as mass storage USB 2.0 devices. Although the Neuros requires the use of a synchronization application, they're both good players.
Neuros Audio is very community oriented and has been mentionedquite a bit on Slashdot recently, and are known as being very friendly to open source.
IAudio isn't quite as friendly to open source as Neuros, but having a player that had USB Host functionality and would play OGG, FM stereo, Video, and (if I feel the urge) WMA 10 based files from Rhapsody or Napster was too good to pass up.
Bottom line, if there is any music I hear and want to keep, I go to the used CD store, buy it, rip it, and move it to my player. No DRM, no loss of audio quality as part of a conversion, and, since both players report as mass storage devices, OS compatibility is not a problem.
Well, I've only had one cup of coffee myself, so I may have been a bit brash as well. I'm a libertarian at heart, so my own personal opinion is "No harm, no foul".
I'm perfectly fine with you opening up your network and running it unprotected. The only time I'd get irate is when a company fails to properly secure 3rd party data. IMHO, when a company accepts 3rd party data, they have a concommitant duty to see that it is properly secured. I'm all for not telling professional admins how to run their networks (frequently, large networks are so unique that I can't imagine any government inspector being able to effectively judge its security). However, something like running an open WAP on an internal network falls under the category of "you shoulda known better. Now, we're gonna hafta break your kneecaps."
As an aside, I'd be interested to see how this law would view honeypots...
While they may not need to tell people like you what to do, the point of TFA (and the proposed law) is that someone needs to tell the clueless what to do. You know: the small business owner who is barely able to turn on their computer, but want to install a WLAN at work because the WLAN their kid installed at home is convenient. So, they go down to $COMPUTERSTORE, buy a WAP, plug it in, and go to town.
And they're shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to find that their network has been pwned within half an hour, and all of their customers' data is being traded under every rock in IRC.
And (from what you mentioned), since you designed your network correctly, you wouldn't have anything to worry about with this law anyway.
Why is that the open source fan boys bash EULA, claim it is not enforceable - yet tout the GPL and whine whenever a violation is perceived?
Because, in most instances, you have to break the seal on a CD or some other sort of media before you can even get to the EULA on a commercial package. Once you break that seal, you usually cannot return the software for any sort of refund or even store credit. This means that you have no opportunity to effectively read a common commercial EULA to decide whether or not you want to use a package covered by that EULA unless you commit to purchasing that package anyway.
However, anyone can go here and read the GPL in all its glory before deciding whether or not they wish to use a particular package.
The irritating thing for me was that I'd never received much in the way of "traditional" telemarketing calls. Instead, it was always charities (wanting me to donate) and businesses with whom I have a current relationship (credit card companies trying to sell me extra crap, and so on).
And, so, when the law was passed, they had loopholes for
politicians (of course: wouldn't want you to forget to donate to someone's [re]election campaign)
charities
businesses with whom I have a previous relationship
The only thing that seems to work is to hang up on the charities and to tell the businesses that you'll be closing your account with them if you get any more calls.
For your info, that machine's primary O.S. is Ubuntu 5.04 64 bit. I've not had any problems getting the Radeon drivers up and running in Ubuntu. I did have a problem getting the 802.11g drivers working in Ubuntu, but I had a different mini-PCI Wifi card available that I knew worked. Other than that (and some minor problems getting things to suspend to memory), it works.
I realize that you had DVI Out in bold, but if you are willing to pass on that and are willing to accept an ATI video card instead of the NVidia, here's a machine in which you may be interested.
I have one of them myself, and have been very happy with it so far.
It would be... decidedly nontrivial, unfortunately. The database structure, when combined with the language (and all of the "features" that are used in the both of them) would make it very difficult to use VistA as much more than a starting point for a specification for use with more mainstream technologies.
As an example, (M)umps is an intrepreted language. It is not at all uncommon to find application code stuffed into a variable, and then find that the variable gets executed in a completely different routine.
And once you've put code in a variable and executed it, there's not much left for which to live.:)
Well, it's public domain, freely available via the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
And, you can indeed have all of the source you want. But, unless you're prepared to read and modify source code that looks like:
S %=DP, X=D, Y=$P(DQ(DQ),U,4)="0:1"
you probably won't be able to do much with the code.
It's written in (M)umps, an old, old, heirarchial database developed for (surprise) hospital use by the Massachusetts General Hospital. The V.A. began developing this system in the early to mid-80's and some of the originals (like George Timson) are still involved the last I heard. They've added a relational database layer (complete with reporting system) on top of the M layer, and have implemented pretty much everything a hospital would need (from prescriptions to e-mail to patient encounter information and so on) in this language.
Right about the time Delphi 1 came out, the V.A. decided they needed to get into the GUI game and created a component that could be used from Delphi to transmit data to and from a V.A. database via TCP stream. This is the basis of the graphical system that an earlier poster mentioned.
Since then, there's been a lot of incredibly cool work done by programmers in the V.A. with this system. I worked as a programmer for the Topeka V.A.M.C. when they did the GUI patient medication admistration system, which caused the incidence of patient medication errors to drop through the floor (I didn't do much of the work on it, but went Cowboy Action Shooting on the weekends with the guy that did).
For all of the abuse that a lot of government employees take on/., pretty much every programmer I ever met or worked with in the V.A. was bright, dedicated, professional, and knew their business.
Anyway, if you're truly serious about downloading this, you need to go to Intersystems and download a copy of Cache for either Windows or Linux, and then go to Hardhats and download the the database. Back when I was still working with it, they had an actual Cache database file that you could download that was already pretty much preconfigured. Since it's been almost 4 years since I've done any VistA work, I'm not sure what the current state of the system is.
And for those of you saying that the commercial software companies aren't going to stand for this competition: the V.A. would periodically evaluate SQL-based databases to see if they could meet the needs of the V.A. Every test I'd ever heard of said that there was no software out there that could meet the needs of the V.A. and, even if they could find software that met their needs, the conversion from one system to another would be nightmarish (to say the least).
...quotes a doctor: 'My impression is that people believe more of what they read than what I tell them. It seems that traditional Western medicine based on scientific evidence is less and less trusted by the general public. Meanwhile, some dubious theory from the Internet will be swallowed hook, line and sinker nine times out of 10.' "
Well, the simple reason is that people don't trust their physicians anymore. Back in the Elder Days(tm) of Marcus Welby and so on, doctors took an interest in the health of their patients. A relationship was built over time. Finally, when the doc said, "You know, you need to go in and have surgery for this", a patient would do so without thinking twice because of the relationship and the longstanding trust between them.
Now, due to the way that doctors have to practice medicine (if they don't want to lose their shirts), they don't have a choice. 15 minutes in and out. No time to get to know their patients, no time to listen to the little old lady that just needs someone to talk to, no time to do anything but write a prescription and go on to the next patient. Now, when a doctor says, "That article on the internet is full of crap, you need surgery," people ask, "Why should I trust you? I don't know you."
If that doctor REALLY wants to know why people would believe an apocryphal story on the internet rather than him, he needs to look at the type of medicine he's practicing.
Note: This is not to blame him. Generally, with the reimbursement rates he's getting from the insurance plans with which he is signed, he is very limited in the amount of time he can spend with a patient. But the point remains: Speaking for myself, if someone wants to practice medicine on me, I have to trust them first. They've got lots of patients, but I only have one body. And the piece of paper on the wall saying M.D. only goes so far in building that trust.
But no, it's an opinion that can be seen as "SCO supportive" and must be modded into oblivion.:-p
Nope. If you want to support SCO, that's your own lookout, and would deserve a "+1 Funny" if anything. The thing that irked me was the insinuation (not opinion) that the scanned document was fake, where even cursory research via Google would have sufficed to prove otherwise to him/her.
I've got mod points today, but I think I'll reply rather than modding you down to the oblivion you deserve. The reason that it looks like it was printed off and scanned into a computer is...
Because it was printed off and scanned into a computer (and no, it is not fake).
The document was submitted in printed form as part of the discovery process. The clerk of the court then took the document and scanned it in as a PDF, allowing an image of the original (as opposed to an OCR'ed copy) to be stored electronically. This version of the document is the one released to the public on demand. Doing it this way is
more economical
more environmentally conscious
easier to distribute
than trying to photocopy originals of all of these documents.
I Googled, but I can't for the life of me remember what keywords I chose. I knew the statement wasn't correct (and the military pilot who said so really should have known better.:) ).
And yes, those blades have a LOT of inertia. I expect that they're probably one of the easiest helos even now to do a full auto on. If you look back at one of my previous posts, I used to be an AH-64 crew chief lo these many years ago. They taught us a little bit about the areodynamics in school, but they really didn't worry too much about teaching us areodynamics. That was why they paid the warrant officers the bigbux.
If you're interested in Hueys, there is a book by Robert Mason, "Chickenhawk", that is an absolute classic about flying them in Vietnam. He talks about not only doing autorotations, but hovering into small trees (and chopping them with the blades), and kicking with the tail rotor to get enough extra torque to get a momentary burst of lift to get over obstacles.
And then, there is the Mi-24D. If you ever get a chance to see one up close and personal, their blades are almost as sturdy as the Huey, and they've got 5 of them.
Sorry, but the blade tips are not supersonic. What you are hearing is the blade tip of a following blade hit the tip vortex of the previous blade. The reason that the Huey has such a problem with "whop whop" is that they have such nice, fat blades and make such big vortices off the tips of the blades.
It looks like you're thinking that the airspeed of the blade is constant along its length. This isn't correct. It varies with the rpm of the rotor, the airspeed of the airframe (as opposed to the blade), the position of the blade with respect to the oncoming airflow, and distance from the rotor hub. The further away from the hub a section of blade is, the faster it moves (relative to the hub).
You are correct in that:
It will not be moving forward at a slower speed than the helicopter relative to the air...
but, if you look at the middle of the blade, as it goes forward (with respect to the airframe), it is moving forward more slowly than the blade tip.
Similarly, a section in the middle of a retreating blade is moving backwards more slowly than the tip of the retreating blade. So if the tip of the retreating blade is stationary (the definition of mu-1), then the section in the middle of the blade must have a negative airspeed (or be moving through the air trailing-edge first).
Well, there are a few other considerations, too. One of the things that limits pure helicopters to a maximum forward airspeed these days of around 200-250 knots is the tip speed on the advancing (not retreating) blade or blades.
Remember that, just as the airspeed of the retreating blade tip is slower than that of the airframe, the airspeed of the advancing blade is faster than that of the airframe. In addition to the asymmetric lift problems of approaching mu-1, you also have a problem with transsonic airspeeds on the advancing blade tip. The blades are not reinforced and structured for transsonic (or supersonic) flight, which can cause the blade to begin to vibrate and ultimately disintegrate (obviously a Bad Thing (tm)).
One of the other Holy Grails of rotor wing aviation was putting a rotor blade capable of going supersonic at the tip on a production helicopter (I vaguely remember seeing that someone finally invented a blade that could do it a couple of years ago, but I've not seen anything come of it yet).
So, since the zone of asymmetric lift is so wide (in terms of airspeed), you would not be able to get out of the zone of asymmetric lift before the tips of the advancing blade went supersonic and shredded themselves.
Although, I also remember (but don't have the time to look for a link) that a helicopter was in development at one point that was designed with some form of thrust-providing jet engine in the back, and, after takeoff, the rotor disk would stop, and the blades would provide lift through the forward motion of the aircraft.
I think that they phrased things poorly. I think what the poster meant was:
1: The airspeed of the blade increases as you get closer to the blade tip and further away from the rotor hub.
2: The tip of the blade has a 0 airspeed ( is "standing still" relative to the wind).
3: Given 1 and 2, the rest of the blade must have a negative airspeed. Or, maybe a better way of saying it is that the trailing edge of the blade is actually meeting the air, not the leading edge. From the way they worded what they were saying, it looked like the poster was saying that the blade was moving backwards relative to the aircraft, not to the air.
From the picture I've seen, the one thing this is NOT is a helicopter. It looks more like a gyrocoptor with wings. Call me back when they've broken mu-1 with a pure helicopter.
Mods, before you go modding down, note the mouse towards the bottom of the page. Also note that it is tracked by the pad, not by an LED, laser, or ball.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's called ssh.
It is entirely possible to, say, use the Blowfish algorithm to encrypt all of the data in a specific table without being an expert in cryptography.
Unfortunately, the review didn't go into enough detail to say this for certain, but I expect that these concepts will enhance security, not hurt it.
Neuros Audio is very community oriented and has been mentioned quite a bit on Slashdot recently, and are known as being very friendly to open source.
IAudio isn't quite as friendly to open source as Neuros, but having a player that had USB Host functionality and would play OGG, FM stereo, Video, and (if I feel the urge) WMA 10 based files from Rhapsody or Napster was too good to pass up.
Bottom line, if there is any music I hear and want to keep, I go to the used CD store, buy it, rip it, and move it to my player. No DRM, no loss of audio quality as part of a conversion, and, since both players report as mass storage devices, OS compatibility is not a problem.
Well, I've only had one cup of coffee myself, so I may have been a bit brash as well. I'm a libertarian at heart, so my own personal opinion is "No harm, no foul".
I'm perfectly fine with you opening up your network and running it unprotected. The only time I'd get irate is when a company fails to properly secure 3rd party data. IMHO, when a company accepts 3rd party data, they have a concommitant duty to see that it is properly secured. I'm all for not telling professional admins how to run their networks (frequently, large networks are so unique that I can't imagine any government inspector being able to effectively judge its security). However, something like running an open WAP on an internal network falls under the category of "you shoulda known better. Now, we're gonna hafta break your kneecaps."
As an aside, I'd be interested to see how this law would view honeypots...
Cheers!
And they're shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to find that their network has been pwned within half an hour, and all of their customers' data is being traded under every rock in IRC.
And (from what you mentioned), since you designed your network correctly, you wouldn't have anything to worry about with this law anyway.
So, why are your knickers twisted?
Well, I was referring to my nickname more than anything else.
Because, in most instances, you have to break the seal on a CD or some other sort of media before you can even get to the EULA on a commercial package. Once you break that seal, you usually cannot return the software for any sort of refund or even store credit. This means that you have no opportunity to effectively read a common commercial EULA to decide whether or not you want to use a package covered by that EULA unless you commit to purchasing that package anyway.
However, anyone can go here and read the GPL in all its glory before deciding whether or not they wish to use a particular package.
Simple enough?
No, you're not. ;)
And, so, when the law was passed, they had loopholes for
The only thing that seems to work is to hang up on the charities and to tell the businesses that you'll be closing your account with them if you get any more calls.
And to the mod that had his/her sense of humor on today, I thank you.
Do they have a Hot Coffee mod for Nightlife? I ask purely for... uhhh.. curiosity's sake. Yeah, that's it.
I pray to God that you never, EVER get the opportunity to realize just how wrong you are.
For your info, that machine's primary O.S. is Ubuntu 5.04 64 bit. I've not had any problems getting the Radeon drivers up and running in Ubuntu. I did have a problem getting the 802.11g drivers working in Ubuntu, but I had a different mini-PCI Wifi card available that I knew worked. Other than that (and some minor problems getting things to suspend to memory), it works.
I have one of them myself, and have been very happy with it so far.
As an example, (M)umps is an intrepreted language. It is not at all uncommon to find application code stuffed into a variable, and then find that the variable gets executed in a completely different routine.
And once you've put code in a variable and executed it, there's not much left for which to live. :)
And, you can indeed have all of the source you want. But, unless you're prepared to read and modify source code that looks like:
you probably won't be able to do much with the code.
It's written in (M)umps, an old, old, heirarchial database developed for (surprise) hospital use by the Massachusetts General Hospital. The V.A. began developing this system in the early to mid-80's and some of the originals (like George Timson) are still involved the last I heard. They've added a relational database layer (complete with reporting system) on top of the M layer, and have implemented pretty much everything a hospital would need (from prescriptions to e-mail to patient encounter information and so on) in this language.
Right about the time Delphi 1 came out, the V.A. decided they needed to get into the GUI game and created a component that could be used from Delphi to transmit data to and from a V.A. database via TCP stream. This is the basis of the graphical system that an earlier poster mentioned.
Since then, there's been a lot of incredibly cool work done by programmers in the V.A. with this system. I worked as a programmer for the Topeka V.A.M.C. when they did the GUI patient medication admistration system, which caused the incidence of patient medication errors to drop through the floor (I didn't do much of the work on it, but went Cowboy Action Shooting on the weekends with the guy that did).
For all of the abuse that a lot of government employees take on /., pretty much every programmer I ever met or worked with in the V.A. was bright, dedicated, professional, and knew their business.
Anyway, if you're truly serious about downloading this, you need to go to Intersystems and download a copy of Cache for either Windows or Linux, and then go to Hardhats and download the the database. Back when I was still working with it, they had an actual Cache database file that you could download that was already pretty much preconfigured. Since it's been almost 4 years since I've done any VistA work, I'm not sure what the current state of the system is.
And for those of you saying that the commercial software companies aren't going to stand for this competition: the V.A. would periodically evaluate SQL-based databases to see if they could meet the needs of the V.A. Every test I'd ever heard of said that there was no software out there that could meet the needs of the V.A. and, even if they could find software that met their needs, the conversion from one system to another would be nightmarish (to say the least).
Well, the simple reason is that people don't trust their physicians anymore. Back in the Elder Days(tm) of Marcus Welby and so on, doctors took an interest in the health of their patients. A relationship was built over time. Finally, when the doc said, "You know, you need to go in and have surgery for this", a patient would do so without thinking twice because of the relationship and the longstanding trust between them.
Now, due to the way that doctors have to practice medicine (if they don't want to lose their shirts), they don't have a choice. 15 minutes in and out. No time to get to know their patients, no time to listen to the little old lady that just needs someone to talk to, no time to do anything but write a prescription and go on to the next patient. Now, when a doctor says, "That article on the internet is full of crap, you need surgery," people ask, "Why should I trust you? I don't know you."
If that doctor REALLY wants to know why people would believe an apocryphal story on the internet rather than him, he needs to look at the type of medicine he's practicing.
Note: This is not to blame him. Generally, with the reimbursement rates he's getting from the insurance plans with which he is signed, he is very limited in the amount of time he can spend with a patient. But the point remains: Speaking for myself, if someone wants to practice medicine on me, I have to trust them first. They've got lots of patients, but I only have one body. And the piece of paper on the wall saying M.D. only goes so far in building that trust.
Nope. If you want to support SCO, that's your own lookout, and would deserve a "+1 Funny" if anything. The thing that irked me was the insinuation (not opinion) that the scanned document was fake, where even cursory research via Google would have sufficed to prove otherwise to him/her.
Because it was printed off and scanned into a computer (and no, it is not fake).
The document was submitted in printed form as part of the discovery process. The clerk of the court then took the document and scanned it in as a PDF, allowing an image of the original (as opposed to an OCR'ed copy) to be stored electronically. This version of the document is the one released to the public on demand. Doing it this way is
than trying to photocopy originals of all of these documents.
And yes, those blades have a LOT of inertia. I expect that they're probably one of the easiest helos even now to do a full auto on. If you look back at one of my previous posts, I used to be an AH-64 crew chief lo these many years ago. They taught us a little bit about the areodynamics in school, but they really didn't worry too much about teaching us areodynamics. That was why they paid the warrant officers the bigbux.
If you're interested in Hueys, there is a book by Robert Mason, "Chickenhawk", that is an absolute classic about flying them in Vietnam. He talks about not only doing autorotations, but hovering into small trees (and chopping them with the blades), and kicking with the tail rotor to get enough extra torque to get a momentary burst of lift to get over obstacles.
And then, there is the Mi-24D. If you ever get a chance to see one up close and personal, their blades are almost as sturdy as the Huey, and they've got 5 of them.
See http://www.bris.ac.uk/researchreview/2003/11138152 75 for more info.
You are correct in that:
but, if you look at the middle of the blade, as it goes forward (with respect to the airframe), it is moving forward more slowly than the blade tip.
Similarly, a section in the middle of a retreating blade is moving backwards more slowly than the tip of the retreating blade. So if the tip of the retreating blade is stationary (the definition of mu-1), then the section in the middle of the blade must have a negative airspeed (or be moving through the air trailing-edge first).
Remember that, just as the airspeed of the retreating blade tip is slower than that of the airframe, the airspeed of the advancing blade is faster than that of the airframe. In addition to the asymmetric lift problems of approaching mu-1, you also have a problem with transsonic airspeeds on the advancing blade tip. The blades are not reinforced and structured for transsonic (or supersonic) flight, which can cause the blade to begin to vibrate and ultimately disintegrate (obviously a Bad Thing (tm)).
One of the other Holy Grails of rotor wing aviation was putting a rotor blade capable of going supersonic at the tip on a production helicopter (I vaguely remember seeing that someone finally invented a blade that could do it a couple of years ago, but I've not seen anything come of it yet).
So, since the zone of asymmetric lift is so wide (in terms of airspeed), you would not be able to get out of the zone of asymmetric lift before the tips of the advancing blade went supersonic and shredded themselves.
Although, I also remember (but don't have the time to look for a link) that a helicopter was in development at one point that was designed with some form of thrust-providing jet engine in the back, and, after takeoff, the rotor disk would stop, and the blades would provide lift through the forward motion of the aircraft.
1: The airspeed of the blade increases as you get closer to the blade tip and further away from the rotor hub.
2: The tip of the blade has a 0 airspeed ( is "standing still" relative to the wind).
3: Given 1 and 2, the rest of the blade must have a negative airspeed. Or, maybe a better way of saying it is that the trailing edge of the blade is actually meeting the air, not the leading edge. From the way they worded what they were saying, it looked like the poster was saying that the blade was moving backwards relative to the aircraft, not to the air.
From the picture I've seen, the one thing this is NOT is a helicopter. It looks more like a gyrocoptor with wings. Call me back when they've broken mu-1 with a pure helicopter.
Mods, before you go modding down, note the mouse towards the bottom of the page. Also note that it is tracked by the pad, not by an LED, laser, or ball.