How/where did you get solar panels for $1/Watt, even refurbished ones? Looking around the net, I see new ones going for about $7-$8/watt, and refurbished ones at about $5-$6/watt. Did you know the supplier personally, or was it just a really lucky find?
Actually the researcher specifically crafted his exploit demo so it wouldn't crash the browser. Maybe if I intentionally get infected, Vista won't suck as much!
On the bright side, this should encourage more women to enter the science and engineering fields, if for no other reason than to crack into this system and perform the digital equivalent of dumping your cocktail on your head. I think training it to rank goatse as aesthetically pleasing would do the trick.
When they have more than "Artist's Conception" drawings.
I want very badly to be excited about the private space race, but with only three serious "New Space" firms with hardware in the sky (Bigelow, SpaceX, and Scaled Composites), I'm still not sure I'll ride a spaceship before I'm dead, at least not at a price I can afford.
AFAIK, the most advanced neural interfaces (the ones DARPA is working on) haven't gotten much more advanced than "Up or Down" and even that requires serious concentration and practice. Seems like a lot of work and money just to play PONG.
Agreed, but I think introducing even mind-controlled Pong will have just a much of a "Wow" factor for the average person as the Wii did, which I hope will encourage more research into this by private companies. How many Wii minigames are just variations on "move the nunchuck and the controller up and down really fast"? But people love it anyway, and that creates incentive to make even cooler stuff.
Personally, I'm hoping they come out with one sensitive enough to make the "Doc Ock" suit a reality. But without the tentacles taking over my mind.
It sounds to me like the old student's ploy: make your parents think you failed a test, so when they find out you actually got a 'C', they're glad.
This sounds like the police proposing completely outlandish things, which the citizenry immediately shouts down, but it desensitizes them to things like tracking their children with GPS units, which they voluntarily buy, without the government even telling them they have to.
I don't want anything less than an 'A' from my government when it comes to civil liberties, and no amount of crazy activity to lower my expectations will make me happy with anything less.
That sucks. Now I have to boycott two summer Olympics in a row.
Seriously, if you're going to consider boycotting China over their dismal actions, why not our alleged ally who slips closer to a police state every day?
Because Vista sucks, and nobody wants to pay for it. I don't see what's surprising to the analysts about that.
The only difference between this and Toshiba's price cuts on HD-DVD players shortly before they finally conceded defeat, is that Microsoft won't have to admit defeat for a long time, if ever, due to the lack of a real "format war" on the desktop.
I get why you say it's not needed, but I don't understand how it's not supported. Like ciggieposeur above me, I don't know that there is a way you could look at a packet and say it's NATted or not, so my question is not "why shouldn't I use NAT with IPV6?", but rather "how does IPV6 actively prevent me from using NAT?".
If only there were some way to use names instead of numbers to identify computers on a network, and when the number behind the names changed, it would be transparent to the end user. Such a foolish dream, I know.
Seriously though, while you may have a point about the trouble of renumbering your internal networks, you have the same problem in IPV6, except in IPV6 you have to renumber every time you change ISPs.
IPv6 does not support NATs (well, it does but its a stretch)
Maybe I'm just not looking smart enough, but I don't understand why IPV6 doesn't support NAT well? I even Googled, with the phrases "ipv6 nat" and "why doesn't ipv6 support nat", and could come up with no detailed explanation. Sorry if I'm being stupid, but could you please explain why NAT wouldn't work in IPV6?
It seems like NAT would be useful if you don't want *any* external sources connecting directly to most of your internal nodes - most offices fit this definition, there's maybe an email server and web server exposed to the outside, but no public services running on any workstations. If would also be nice not to have to change all your internal IP addresses every time you change ISPs.
Yeah, because we all know that any kind of sexual behavior is abnormal and only perverted sickos think otherwise. Now hurry up so I can get home and watch my Rambo V rental video.
I didn't say I was going to let my kid watch violent movies, and I didn't say all sex is abnormal and should be struck from public discourse. Really, for me, it's a matter of degree. Statistically speaking, you can talk all you want in public about what you did in bed with your girlfriend last weekend, because not everybody will be doing the same thing. My problem in this particular case is what I perceived to be a full-on, inescapable assault of sexuality in the magazine headlines. As in, every single magazine was screaming something about how you should always be having wonderful sex right on the front cover.
Would it be okay if everybody at your favorite video rental store, which includes a kids movie section, started talking in very loud voices about the orgy they all had last weekend, when children are present? This is admittedly a more extreme example than the magazines that have caused this discussion, but I freely admit we're in a gray area here, which is why I don't advocate government intervention, just conversation about what is acceptable. And boy am I getting that.
Yeah, I should have qualified that better. If they can sneak a few beers past me when they're in high school, and they can undetectably bypass the firewall on the home computer when they're looking for porn (after they're at least in high school, please), but still be home for dinner every night and make good grades in school, then I'll know I've raised them right. I believe this because it worked for me.
If its my responsiblity to help raise your child, than I should get a say in how you're raising your child. If you're going to blame me because your child didn't come out the way you wanted, then I certainly can be more involved in how you raise your kid. For the record, I think religon is garbage, so when raising your kid, raise them atheist. I don't want you filling your kid's head with fairy tales and myths.
So you agree with my idea in principle, we're just quibbling over price. I can deal. I will agree that my child will be raised to respect your opinions, and not in a Southern Baptist "I respect your opinion, you hell-bound faggot" sense, but really to accept that you have the right to live your life the way you want. My child will also not kill you or your family for sport.
In exchange, I only ask that you not swear or talk about sex in front of my child before they're at least in middle school. That's all
Everybody in this thread has assumed that I am somehow hell-bent on keeping my child away from all uncomfortable subjects until they're 18, and that I want everyone else to stop what they're doing so it doesn't interfere with my master plan. That's not the case, I just think people need to respect that children are impressionable, and just because it's primarily the parent's job to filter out the bad, it's not necessarily alright for you to act like there will never be children in a public place.
Your kid cannot perceive the information the same way as you. They have no running history or experience that might even give them the faintest insight into what "Make Him Wild With Desire!!!" might mean. The closest they can get is to relate it to sex, and in 5th grade, sex is just a barely recognizable concept to them.
Even if the child doesn't really understand what sex is, those headlines will make him or her think it's something they should be doing a lot of, because those magazines straight-up glamorize it on the front page. I don't think I can say with a straight face that won't have an effect on how they view sex, and particularly how much they should be having, when they do come to understand more about it. "The formative years" isn't a cliche, it's true.
I will agree that the particular issue of these magazines in the newsstands is a gray area, where reasonable people can disagree (you and I are two such). The gray area aspect of the whole "where is the border between acceptable displays of sexuality and porn" is precisely why I say I am against government intervention in this space, and would rather have a conversation with the owners of the newsstands/websites/etc. directly, as a consumer. This allows them to make an informed choice themselves about what their consumers want. I'm not going to sue them if they refuse to take the magazines down, but I will go to another store if I can find one that does agree with me.
If they're smart enough to sneak around the walls I set up around them undetected, I've raised them right, and they're probably ready to start facing the "real world". If they aren't, they need to get smarter and start thinking more for themselves before they can get out. The "wall" is as much a training mechanism as a protection mechanism, in that it makes them think.
I also used to think that it was the parent's, and only the parent's, job to filter out inappropriate content. But then one day, I was in the checkout aisle at the grocery store, and every single one of the women's magazines had a headline like "Have Hot Sex Tonight!!", "Make Him Wild With Desire!!!", "Naughty Nasties You Can Do To Him In The Bedroom!!!!!!!!!!". Right there, in the open, next to the freaking candy.
Granted, there weren't pictures of the mentioned techniques on the front covers of these magazines, in fact the front cover pictures were your typical fully clothed, respectable looking, successful women, as you'd expect in a modern woman's magazine. But doesn't it seem like having those kinds of headlines at eye-level to a fifth grader might make our children get some wrong ideas about sexuality, as in, it should always be on their mind, because it's always on the front cover of those magazines?
What am I supposed to do about that kind of situation, keep my kid inside and away from grocery stores until they're 18? The point is, it is the parent's primary responsibility to filter out unwanted material, but that doesn't give you the right to go around glamorizing, or even normalizing, overtly sexual behavior in places you could reasonably expect to find a preschooler.
I don't believe government regulation is the way to solve this kind of issue, but I think it's well within your rights (including your First Amendment rights), to speak out and ask the corporations, who do have some kind of control what gets displayed where, to do something about it.
For the record, I plan to use a locked-down computer with all sorts of nanny software when my child gets old enough to use one (he/she is due in July, which is why I've been thinking about it more), so this particular issue of Google and Yahoo possibly not doing enough to filter things for the populace at large isn't going to affect me. I just wanted to point out that society, including businesses and including you, the individual, isn't entirely free of responsibility when it comes to someone else's child.
I didn't mean "must" in the "great hand of physics will pull the satellite to its inevitable doom" sense, but rather in the "we intentionally deorbit all our satellites after their useful life is over to avoid filling the skies with debris" sense. And even without intentionally deorbiting them, most satellites experience enough atmospheric drag (i.e. not 'nil') to bring them down in tens to hundreds of years - not a legacy you'd like to leave your grandchildren.
That may be the actual thought process at the Pentagon, but there is actually a sound justification for shooting down this satellite: TFA says there is a 1 percent chance debris could hit a populated area. That is well above the danger threshold NASA, etc. allow when choosing where to perform a controlled deorbit. 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot, until you realize how many satellites are up there, and they all must come down eventually.
Even if safety weren't a genuine concern, it would still be acceptable to shoot down this particular satellite, in my uninformed opinion. I believe this because it's already in a decaying orbit that will bring it down within two months. Any debris created by the explosion will be in a similar or slightly higher orbit, and will also decay to GLO (ground-level orbit) in a reasonably short time. The satellite the Chinese shot down was in a much higher orbit, and that debris is likely to stay up for *hundreds* of years, IIRC. If they had shot down a satellite in a similar orbit as this, there wouldn't be a stink about the debris, only about the naked attempt at weaponizing space.
Removing DRM won't cause the music companies to collapse any faster than they would with DRM, because motivated individuals will always find a way to break the secret codes.
The question is, will piracy eventually kill the music industry as we know it today? I think it probably will, because honestly, nobody wants to pay to listen to Brittney Spears, they just want to listen to it because MTV made it look cool.
The music companies are damned if they do and damned if they don't, in my opinion, because people are going to pirate anyway, with or without DRM. Even with the draconian powers the DMCA and like-minded laws give them, it's not feasible to sue every pirate, even if they can convince the FBI to go after the pirates for them.
Honestly, I feel kind of sorry for the big music companies. But only as sorry as I feel for the buggy-whip makers of old. It doesn't help their case that they brought Brittney Spears and such to the masses either. But my point is that a new paradigm always has winners and losers, and you can't expect the losers to feel good, especially when it's their whole livelihood they're losing out on. Of course, you can't just let them break your whole legal system in their death throes, so even though I feel sorry for them, I think the best thing for all of us would be just to shoot them and put them out of their and our misery.
It's easier to change what gets stamped into a cd than what gets set into the silicon
Nope. I do embedded software, and write the test suite all those devices go through before being shipped to the customer. It's pretty standard to set custom stuff at that time, including the MAC ID for the unit. It would be just as easy to change the password at that time.
Your comment about the CD key, however, is right on.
They probably reached for the lawyers first because they'd already signed a licensing deal for online Scrabble to EA. From the Fortune blog linked to in the summary:
a recent licensing deal... assigned online Scrabble rights to EA (ERTS).
I don't know the specifics about that deal, but I'll bet exclusivity was part of it. And why shouldn't they have signed an exclusive deal with whoever was going to make them the most money? It is, after all, their trademark, and they get to decide how and who uses their trademark according to whatever logic they use. You may argue that they could have made more money with the "Free Advertising" model of "license it to everybody and more people will buy the hardcopy of the game", but they probably thought this was the better deal.
Yeah. You'd think that a community that cares as much about IP abuses as the tech crowd in these parts would at least know their enemy.
Hey kids, take some friendly advice: Nobody will care about your arguments, no matter how sound they are on some basic level, if you don't even get the terminology right. At best, you'll just confuse your target audience, and you won't convince them of anything. At worst, they'll think anybody that complains about IP abuse is just another idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
How/where did you get solar panels for $1/Watt, even refurbished ones? Looking around the net, I see new ones going for about $7-$8/watt, and refurbished ones at about $5-$6/watt. Did you know the supplier personally, or was it just a really lucky find?
Actually the researcher specifically crafted his exploit demo so it wouldn't crash the browser. Maybe if I intentionally get infected, Vista won't suck as much!
On the bright side, this should encourage more women to enter the science and engineering fields, if for no other reason than to crack into this system and perform the digital equivalent of dumping your cocktail on your head. I think training it to rank goatse as aesthetically pleasing would do the trick.
When they have more than "Artist's Conception" drawings.
I want very badly to be excited about the private space race, but with only three serious "New Space" firms with hardware in the sky (Bigelow, SpaceX, and Scaled Composites), I'm still not sure I'll ride a spaceship before I'm dead, at least not at a price I can afford.
Agreed, but I think introducing even mind-controlled Pong will have just a much of a "Wow" factor for the average person as the Wii did, which I hope will encourage more research into this by private companies. How many Wii minigames are just variations on "move the nunchuck and the controller up and down really fast"? But people love it anyway, and that creates incentive to make even cooler stuff.
Personally, I'm hoping they come out with one sensitive enough to make the "Doc Ock" suit a reality. But without the tentacles taking over my mind.
It sounds to me like the old student's ploy: make your parents think you failed a test, so when they find out you actually got a 'C', they're glad.
This sounds like the police proposing completely outlandish things, which the citizenry immediately shouts down, but it desensitizes them to things like tracking their children with GPS units, which they voluntarily buy, without the government even telling them they have to.
I don't want anything less than an 'A' from my government when it comes to civil liberties, and no amount of crazy activity to lower my expectations will make me happy with anything less.
That sucks. Now I have to boycott two summer Olympics in a row.
Seriously, if you're going to consider boycotting China over their dismal actions, why not our alleged ally who slips closer to a police state every day?
Because Vista sucks, and nobody wants to pay for it. I don't see what's surprising to the analysts about that.
The only difference between this and Toshiba's price cuts on HD-DVD players shortly before they finally conceded defeat, is that Microsoft won't have to admit defeat for a long time, if ever, due to the lack of a real "format war" on the desktop.
I get why you say it's not needed, but I don't understand how it's not supported. Like ciggieposeur above me, I don't know that there is a way you could look at a packet and say it's NATted or not, so my question is not "why shouldn't I use NAT with IPV6?", but rather "how does IPV6 actively prevent me from using NAT?".
If only there were some way to use names instead of numbers to identify computers on a network, and when the number behind the names changed, it would be transparent to the end user. Such a foolish dream, I know.
Seriously though, while you may have a point about the trouble of renumbering your internal networks, you have the same problem in IPV6, except in IPV6 you have to renumber every time you change ISPs.
Maybe I'm just not looking smart enough, but I don't understand why IPV6 doesn't support NAT well? I even Googled, with the phrases "ipv6 nat" and "why doesn't ipv6 support nat", and could come up with no detailed explanation. Sorry if I'm being stupid, but could you please explain why NAT wouldn't work in IPV6?
It seems like NAT would be useful if you don't want *any* external sources connecting directly to most of your internal nodes - most offices fit this definition, there's maybe an email server and web server exposed to the outside, but no public services running on any workstations. If would also be nice not to have to change all your internal IP addresses every time you change ISPs.
I didn't say I was going to let my kid watch violent movies, and I didn't say all sex is abnormal and should be struck from public discourse. Really, for me, it's a matter of degree. Statistically speaking, you can talk all you want in public about what you did in bed with your girlfriend last weekend, because not everybody will be doing the same thing. My problem in this particular case is what I perceived to be a full-on, inescapable assault of sexuality in the magazine headlines. As in, every single magazine was screaming something about how you should always be having wonderful sex right on the front cover.
Would it be okay if everybody at your favorite video rental store, which includes a kids movie section, started talking in very loud voices about the orgy they all had last weekend, when children are present? This is admittedly a more extreme example than the magazines that have caused this discussion, but I freely admit we're in a gray area here, which is why I don't advocate government intervention, just conversation about what is acceptable. And boy am I getting that.
Yeah, I should have qualified that better. If they can sneak a few beers past me when they're in high school, and they can undetectably bypass the firewall on the home computer when they're looking for porn (after they're at least in high school, please), but still be home for dinner every night and make good grades in school, then I'll know I've raised them right. I believe this because it worked for me.
So you agree with my idea in principle, we're just quibbling over price. I can deal. I will agree that my child will be raised to respect your opinions, and not in a Southern Baptist "I respect your opinion, you hell-bound faggot" sense, but really to accept that you have the right to live your life the way you want. My child will also not kill you or your family for sport.
In exchange, I only ask that you not swear or talk about sex in front of my child before they're at least in middle school. That's all
Everybody in this thread has assumed that I am somehow hell-bent on keeping my child away from all uncomfortable subjects until they're 18, and that I want everyone else to stop what they're doing so it doesn't interfere with my master plan. That's not the case, I just think people need to respect that children are impressionable, and just because it's primarily the parent's job to filter out the bad, it's not necessarily alright for you to act like there will never be children in a public place.
Even if the child doesn't really understand what sex is, those headlines will make him or her think it's something they should be doing a lot of, because those magazines straight-up glamorize it on the front page. I don't think I can say with a straight face that won't have an effect on how they view sex, and particularly how much they should be having, when they do come to understand more about it. "The formative years" isn't a cliche, it's true.
I will agree that the particular issue of these magazines in the newsstands is a gray area, where reasonable people can disagree (you and I are two such). The gray area aspect of the whole "where is the border between acceptable displays of sexuality and porn" is precisely why I say I am against government intervention in this space, and would rather have a conversation with the owners of the newsstands/websites/etc. directly, as a consumer. This allows them to make an informed choice themselves about what their consumers want. I'm not going to sue them if they refuse to take the magazines down, but I will go to another store if I can find one that does agree with me.
If they're smart enough to sneak around the walls I set up around them undetected, I've raised them right, and they're probably ready to start facing the "real world". If they aren't, they need to get smarter and start thinking more for themselves before they can get out. The "wall" is as much a training mechanism as a protection mechanism, in that it makes them think.
I also used to think that it was the parent's, and only the parent's, job to filter out inappropriate content. But then one day, I was in the checkout aisle at the grocery store, and every single one of the women's magazines had a headline like "Have Hot Sex Tonight!!", "Make Him Wild With Desire!!!", "Naughty Nasties You Can Do To Him In The Bedroom!!!!!!!!!!". Right there, in the open, next to the freaking candy.
Granted, there weren't pictures of the mentioned techniques on the front covers of these magazines, in fact the front cover pictures were your typical fully clothed, respectable looking, successful women, as you'd expect in a modern woman's magazine. But doesn't it seem like having those kinds of headlines at eye-level to a fifth grader might make our children get some wrong ideas about sexuality, as in, it should always be on their mind, because it's always on the front cover of those magazines?
What am I supposed to do about that kind of situation, keep my kid inside and away from grocery stores until they're 18? The point is, it is the parent's primary responsibility to filter out unwanted material, but that doesn't give you the right to go around glamorizing, or even normalizing, overtly sexual behavior in places you could reasonably expect to find a preschooler.
I don't believe government regulation is the way to solve this kind of issue, but I think it's well within your rights (including your First Amendment rights), to speak out and ask the corporations, who do have some kind of control what gets displayed where, to do something about it.
For the record, I plan to use a locked-down computer with all sorts of nanny software when my child gets old enough to use one (he/she is due in July, which is why I've been thinking about it more), so this particular issue of Google and Yahoo possibly not doing enough to filter things for the populace at large isn't going to affect me. I just wanted to point out that society, including businesses and including you, the individual, isn't entirely free of responsibility when it comes to someone else's child.
I didn't mean "must" in the "great hand of physics will pull the satellite to its inevitable doom" sense, but rather in the "we intentionally deorbit all our satellites after their useful life is over to avoid filling the skies with debris" sense. And even without intentionally deorbiting them, most satellites experience enough atmospheric drag (i.e. not 'nil') to bring them down in tens to hundreds of years - not a legacy you'd like to leave your grandchildren.
That may be the actual thought process at the Pentagon, but there is actually a sound justification for shooting down this satellite: TFA says there is a 1 percent chance debris could hit a populated area. That is well above the danger threshold NASA, etc. allow when choosing where to perform a controlled deorbit. 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot, until you realize how many satellites are up there, and they all must come down eventually.
Even if safety weren't a genuine concern, it would still be acceptable to shoot down this particular satellite, in my uninformed opinion. I believe this because it's already in a decaying orbit that will bring it down within two months. Any debris created by the explosion will be in a similar or slightly higher orbit, and will also decay to GLO (ground-level orbit) in a reasonably short time. The satellite the Chinese shot down was in a much higher orbit, and that debris is likely to stay up for *hundreds* of years, IIRC. If they had shot down a satellite in a similar orbit as this, there wouldn't be a stink about the debris, only about the naked attempt at weaponizing space.
No, it's all of idle.slashdot.org.
Removing DRM won't cause the music companies to collapse any faster than they would with DRM, because motivated individuals will always find a way to break the secret codes.
The question is, will piracy eventually kill the music industry as we know it today? I think it probably will, because honestly, nobody wants to pay to listen to Brittney Spears, they just want to listen to it because MTV made it look cool.
The music companies are damned if they do and damned if they don't, in my opinion, because people are going to pirate anyway, with or without DRM. Even with the draconian powers the DMCA and like-minded laws give them, it's not feasible to sue every pirate, even if they can convince the FBI to go after the pirates for them.
Honestly, I feel kind of sorry for the big music companies. But only as sorry as I feel for the buggy-whip makers of old. It doesn't help their case that they brought Brittney Spears and such to the masses either. But my point is that a new paradigm always has winners and losers, and you can't expect the losers to feel good, especially when it's their whole livelihood they're losing out on. Of course, you can't just let them break your whole legal system in their death throes, so even though I feel sorry for them, I think the best thing for all of us would be just to shoot them and put them out of their and our misery.
Nope. I do embedded software, and write the test suite all those devices go through before being shipped to the customer. It's pretty standard to set custom stuff at that time, including the MAC ID for the unit. It would be just as easy to change the password at that time.
Your comment about the CD key, however, is right on.
Yeah, this patent is just the concept of Mouse Gestures, but with a different clicking pattern and target of action.
They probably reached for the lawyers first because they'd already signed a licensing deal for online Scrabble to EA. From the Fortune blog linked to in the summary:
I don't know the specifics about that deal, but I'll bet exclusivity was part of it. And why shouldn't they have signed an exclusive deal with whoever was going to make them the most money? It is, after all, their trademark, and they get to decide how and who uses their trademark according to whatever logic they use. You may argue that they could have made more money with the "Free Advertising" model of "license it to everybody and more people will buy the hardcopy of the game", but they probably thought this was the better deal.
Yeah. You'd think that a community that cares as much about IP abuses as the tech crowd in these parts would at least know their enemy.
Hey kids, take some friendly advice: Nobody will care about your arguments, no matter how sound they are on some basic level, if you don't even get the terminology right. At best, you'll just confuse your target audience, and you won't convince them of anything. At worst, they'll think anybody that complains about IP abuse is just another idiot.