And every call you make costs you an additional dollar worth of minutes, connected or not. And checking your voice mail costs you. And incoming calls if answered cost an additional $1 plus minutes.
Just because you haven't REALIZED you're getting raped doesn't mean you aren't getting raped.
But they also expire each month. You're ignoring the fact that you're buying a different type of service for a land line than you are for a wireless option.
There are providers, at least locally, that will be happy to provider you with unlimited * for your wireless device for $100 a month, no extra fees, send them $100, your phone works for any domestic call, data access or texting.
Of course, since you're paying for unlimited, you pay a lot more since its wireless and it has no competition. Your home service exists as it does today because everyone moved to cell phones, meaning land lines could no longer charge extra for shit that didn't cost them. They had to drop their prices to keep the infrastructure in use, and the result is that phone bills for land lines dropped an order of magnitude across the nation as the bills adjusted down to reflect the actual cost of the service provided (because they were no longer the sole supplier, thus the demand for that service dropped).
You'll get more places offering the options you seek when we get more cellular providers, not before then. As long as a few major carriers are the only ones with the money to build the infrastructure (lets ignore the fact that your tax dollars paid for that infrastructure due to government grants as well for the moment), you won't have competition, and the wireless industry will stay exactly like it is.
Fortunately, the wireless industry has one major problem. Like it or not, there is a lot of spectrum out there that can't be monopolized like the standard cellular bands are now, and as technology progresses and it becomes easier and easier for hardware to work on multiple frequency ranges at the same time, we'll see some inventive sole doing something like providing phone services in TV whitespace when possible, 4G when available, ect.
Eventually, technology will allow someone to break the monopoly, until then, you're going to have to look at second rate, fly by night, ghetto wireless providers who typically deal with people who have financial difficulties or credit problems. The up side to that is you'll find a lot of those services aren't priced horribly, and if you get REALLY lucky, you'll find one of those services that actually is good (some of them are, Cricket here actually does better than most of the local providers for coverage even though they are just piggy backing on the other towers (don't ask me how it manages for them to get better coverage, they seem to be able to bend the laws of physics here). The some how manage to keep connections in areas where other providers drop them. I'd jump ship to them in a heart beat, but I don't really need unlimited and I'm well out of contract already anyway, so I'd rather just keep whoring myself out to AT&T to keep visual voicemail until (hopefully) visual voicemail isn't limited to a couple providers.
I think the solution is to require software companies to put their code into escrow.
The instant they stop supporting it, the code in escrow is released to the public.
They get copyright protection and control over their game as long as they give it attention, when they don't give it any attention, they relinquish control.
Everyone wins. They get the protection of copyright (which when used fairly ISN'T a bad thing, but its invariably abused), and we get to know we're not buying something that the vendor can obsolete on demand based on a whim or... more likely, greed.
It really should be something like that for all copyrighted items, you only control them as long as you make them available to people in some reasonable form you keep copyright control and determine how it gets distributed. We would need to define a few things like 'reasonable form' which is probably where we'd get fucked but thats another story, heh.
What fucking phone company do you use that has quality as shitty as Skype? My 1998 analog cell phone did better 20 miles away from a tower than Skype does on a good day.
The only people who 'jumped on skype' are people too cheap to pay for a real phone line... i.e. no one important.
No one who matter uses Skype, they use a real phone. Yes, I realize that some people use Skype for business, and as I said, no one who matters uses Skype. I've seen plenty of sales people using it... ironically, they are also the lowest performing sales people as well.
It just wreaks of cheapskate and its quality shows when you have to deal with someone on it.
Skype is used by some geeks who don't want to pay for phone service, some sales people who think its saving them a dime when its really costing them a fortune in lost sales, and a whole bunch of horny cheating men and women who use it to communicate with the person they are having an affair with while preventing their significant other from noticing the calls on the phone bill or recent calls list. Thats it.
A leech never makes a contribution and sucks your life force out of you.
A shareholder on the other hand MADE a contribution to your company as an investment. Shareholders HAVE contributed to the company and ARE risking something, in many cases more than the people making the decisions.
Once you come down from whatever silly college professor induced hippie thought pattern you got going on in there, you might be able to understand that making money is not a bad thing in and of itself.
Unless they can't sue because the contract stipulates arbitration.
You can stipulate arbitration all day long. The court may even make you do it in an attempt to solve it without being in court... and then when arbitration is over and you still aren't happy, you can take them to court.
There are certain rights you can't give up in a contract, the right to sue is one of them.
A judge may force them to do arbitration first, but they can still sue if they want. As you said, its all happened recently, judges have even made people go to arbitration... but never have they been prevented from suing.
Actually, you really don't have to go to arbitration, but you look like a douche when you walk into the court room to call them out because they didn't follow the terms of your contract and you have to follow up your complaint with 'oh yea, and because they didn't follow the contract, I completely ignored how we said we'd handle disputes'.
Show one other OS from anyone other Microsoft who has the support lifetime of Microsoft OSes after they are released.
MS supports their OSes longer than ANYONE else in the consumer market. There are probably some IBM or HP installations with older OSes at businesses, and certainly plenty of other old things here and there in SCADA and other various nooks and crannies.
From a consumer view however, no one comes close to offering paid support for a lifetime as long as MS's free support period.
And before anyone starts talking about Ubuntu LTS, no... its not even really close, try again.
Yea, and there are actually white dudes who can play basketball, black dudes with no rhythm, and asians who suck at math AND can drive a car safely. But those are all exceptions to the generalization and you'd be an idiot to anyone who wasn't a pedantic fuck or a overly sensitive politically correct fairy.
You can point out exceptions to a generalization ALL DAY LONG and it doesn't matter as they are exceptions, not the norm. Yes, a few companies have execs that don't suck, but in generally, execs are lazy over paid greedy useless fucks.
Just finding an exception doesn't change the generalization, it just points out your inability to comprehend the difference between a statement of pure fact and a generalization used to make a point.
But hey, being pedantic douche always makes you friends at parties.
From what you've said, I can safely deduce without any uncertainly that you have never actually used Firefox at any point in your life.
As far as it being a plugin or something, I'll tell you the same thing I told our VoIP provider...
I don't care WHAT or WHY the exact reason is, when I do A... B happens. I don't care if its not A's fault, if I don't use it, it doesn't happen so you're choices are to make it so A prevents something else from causing it a problem, or I'll use something else.
No one gives a shit what the specific reason Firefox eats RAM is, it indicates bad design in general.
Windows crashes all the time cause Microsoft writes shitty buggy software. That statement is pretty much 100% false. 10 times out of 8 when a Windows PC crashes its related to a 3rd party driver. But no one gives a shit because Windows has still crashed.
Blame it on other stuff all day long, the rest of us are still going to think of Firefox as wasting a bunch of ram because anyone who uses it finds it wasting a lot of ram. If third party plugins are the problem, and everyone uses 3rd party plugins then the browser is still broken.
Thats 240k/year and doesn't require you to live somewhere that 240k a year isn't a big salary.
240k/year is decent pay for anyone doing that job with the exception to that being the jobs doing it in areas where it costs a million plus a year just to pay your rent.
You're seriously claiming you make 240k/year or more and that that is 'average pay'? What shitty assed city do you live in where thats the case cause there are only a limited number of places where 240k/year is average pay and pretty much none of them are home of software companies that do this sort of thing.
If you meant to say 60k/year is average pay for this sort of work... then sure, but thats for a years worth of work, not 3 months of spare time.
but they aren't getting rich or even gainfully employed from these activities.
You are completely disconnected from reality, you clearly have no idea what the average salary is for this sort of work.
Do you even have a job and live on your own? The only way I can see someone making these sort of statements is if they are still in high school living at home with absolutely no idea what the real world is actually life when mommy and daddy aren't carrying your weight.
We'll each have 20-40 tabs open at a given time and sift through gigs of data every day.
No you don't. You may have 20-40 tabs open, but I can say without a doubt that you aren't 'sifting through gigs of data every day'. Gigs are not kilobytes, which is likely what you are actually able to process on a daily basis.
20-40 tabs eh? Let me give you the first hint... if you have 20-40 tabs open, its highly unlike you're actually accomplishing anything with more than about 5 of those tabs, you can ramble on about how you really do use them all actively, but actual research shows that about 1 in a million people can actually keep more than 5-7 active thoughts in their heads at any one time, and by more I mean maybe 8 on a good day. The brain simply doesn't work in a way that makes having that many tabs open efficient in any way.
The reality of it is, everytime I see someone with a fuckton of tabs open what I generally have found is that you're trying to do something you have no clue how to do, no idea how to start finding where to look to do it, and generally clueless about the subject matter in general.
Yes, I sound condescending and like I'm just being a dick and calling you a liar. And I am. Your trying to brag about how much you do and you've made it crystal clear you're full of shit:). You may have 20-40 tabs open, but thats simply because you think its cool or your too stupid to close them, it has nothing to do with how much 'data you sift through'.
You may use a bunch of bandwidth in a day, but its not because you need to, its because you're wasteful and inefficient. Bandwidth caps are good for people like you, keeps you from being retarded and wasting everyone elses bandwidth because you spend most of your time downloading shit you'll never see so you can brag on slashdot about how many tabs you have open.
My local ISP already caches itunes, MS, apple, and a whole bunch of other people... because most ISPs of any size have an Akami CDN node in them, which all these guys use anyway.
MS isn't going to trust your (or the grand parents friends rather) installation of WSUS to function properly consistently OR that you won't fuck with the updates since in order for my PC to trust that WSUS I either have to be on the same domain as it, or it has to use the same private keys that MS uses for distribution... meaning the ISP would have the data required to code sign as MS... which will simply never happen.
No you haven't. Anonymous and trusted are mutually exclusive, and thats why you keep failing.
Seems fairly clear you don't even understand how humans naturally build trust in the real world. Your failure to understand that pretty much precludes you from augmenting it in any working way.
Its okay dude, what he was saying is that even if it was a slashvertisment, its okay because this one ACTUALLY BELONGS on slashdot as it truely is news for nerds, regardless of the slavertising part.
This sort of article being submitted to slashdot in an attempt to gain attention for the subject of the article is perfectly acceptable because this is the kind of stuff we WANT to see.
Anyone bitching about slashvertisments in this cause is just being a douche, and the guy you were replying too is basically saying that.
Keep submitting articles like this, slashvertisement or not, this is what want to see...
What we don't want to see is the article spread out over 20 pages with a paragraph on each page, surrounded by literally 25-30 flash ads that we have to page through.
What we don't want is some random Apple app advertisment, or some go spaming his blog where he makes up some 'top ten' list of 'important events in computing' and you can tell by the list this guy has been using computers all of 15 minutes.
If you don't link to anything that considers itself a 'blog' thats a good start. If you don't link to any 'computer magazine' webiste, then you're doing good.
What not to do: Link to anything OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL STORY. No linking to someones blog which links to the original story. No linking to some random retards (yours included) comments about the subject matter... which links to the subject matter.
I could go on, but the point is, the person your replying too isn't bitching about your post, he's defending it.
Using what you describe, you have produced random unusable gibberish on the output.
You can't throw randomness into cryptography, contrary to common belief. Everything has to be known or calculatable in order for the original data to be extracted from the encryption.
Cryptography is VERY complex math, nothing more at this point, with the general idea intended to be to make it take a minimum amount of time to decrypt the data, but making that time long enough to prevent brute forcing from being viable and not allowing for any shortcuts in the math that would narrow down the possibilities for the brute forcer to try.
What you describe just does more of the same thing we do now, you simply don't understand how what your describing actually works. At best, you've just slowed the system down because you've required more calculations. At worst, you've added a why to sidestep portions of the process and possibly find ways to shorten the brute force time of the system.
Adding more to an encryption system is generally not regarded as the solution to the problem, 11 times out of 10, you'll add more bugs that can be exploited to weaken your security than you added additional security anyway. Its a rather common thing to have happen in the cryptography world.
, because RSA/ElGamal is likely much more secure (with reasonable key-lenghts) than AES.
Show me someplace that uses RSA for encryption of raw data.
What you have in the real world EVERYWHERE is that RSA is used for key exchange/session key generation/identity verification... and AES is used to encrypt the payload data.
Why? asymmetric encryption is extremely processor intensive, too much so to do on any practical scale.
So this quantum stuff is not useless for the reasons you state (although there are actual reasons why its useless) because the reasons you state are how pretty much every cryptosystem on the planet using asymmetric keys works already. What you describe as how quantum crypto works is pretty much how SSL works, except your using some sort of quantum bullshit in place of RSA for session identity verification and key exchange.
before you start telling people how cryptography works, you might actually want to learn how cryptography works.
The fact that they had to invent a name for a bit on quantum computers is where I knew to jump off the train.
Its a bit, there is no need to call it a qbit, it represents the same thing, the smallest amount of information we use in computers. It is either 1 or 0.
The fact that it gets called a qbit instantly lets anyone with a clue know that this is a marketing gimmick and there is no useful value to quantum computing at this time. You don't have to call useful things by new entirely different wanna be trendy names in order for them to be useful, the fact that they've done so means their trying to convince normal people of its value by making it sound trendy than actually showing a useful value to it.
There isn't a current quantum computing implementation that has any practical value beyond research of quantum computing. The fact of the matter is, right this instant, anything we can do with a quantum computer we can do faster, cheaper, smaller, with less resources and in less time to build with standard hardware.
Anyone who buys into quantum computing at this point is an ignorant idiot at best, it gets worse from there, and yes, I realize a major defense contractor just bought one, and my point still standards considering who within that organization bought the device.
Yea, because the browser doesn't already do that in hundreds of places in order to perform as fast as possible.
If you're using a firefox backed by Cairo, you're most certainly using OS specific extensions or using an OS with no features worth talking too.
The browser is the shim between the presentation layer of the native OS and the web. Its very job is to provide the native hooks in uniform way so that web pages are rendered.
You have to be tightly coupled with the OSes native features if you want your web browser to work. How do you intend to draw to the screen? You realize that Firefox uses OS specific APIs for doing its IO right? Its not like it uses kpoll for sockets on Windows or OSX. The browsers job is to provide a common interface between the OS and the web so that the web can be experienced on the OS.
Your app won't be doing any graphics or sound without being tightly coupled to the OS, even if you're using some API like OGL and OAL, they are still tightly coupled with the OS, you're just ignoring that fact for the sake of your point of view.
:BEGIN ActiveX IGNORANCE RANT: You do realize that ActiveX is just a plugin system... right? Just like the one Mozilla has, and Chrome, and Safari, and Opera...
Its just a COM object, you know Mozilla uses its own variation of COM called XPCOM... which actually less secure than ActiveX. In order to get ActiveX to load in a browser AT ALL, the developer has to mark the object as safe for use in the browser, then if you want to access it via javascript, it also has to be marked for that by the developer. XPCOM has no such flags, though it does use additional security mechanisms to accomplish the same thing, so they are functionally the same with one major exception:
ActiveX is a system wide plugin implementation.
IE had some stupid defaults, and MS developer made a habit of marking all kinds of ActiveX objects as safe for use in a browser and scripting when they never should have been marked as such. Then when they first added support to IE for it, they defaulted to accepting them all, then the changed to defaulting if the ActiveX object was digitally signed to be more secure, which of course took 24 hours for new controls to be released with digital signatures on them from the bad guys, but it did cut out most of the accidentally 'safe for web/scripting' controls since they hadnt' been digitally signed.
Now days, it takes an actual exploit to get unknown code to run in IE, otherwise the user has to click Yes somewhere.
Yes, the IE implementation to use ActiveX what a prime example of how not to design software which is intended to documents from untrusted sources, but it was purely the IE implementation that was bad, and the real problem was defaulting to allow instead of deny or prompt.
If ActiveX is bad, so is XPCOM and all mozilla plugins, and well, all plugins in general, regardless of browser or application. I have plugins that compile for both ActiveX and XPCOM with nothing more than a change of the IDL compiler so it generate mozilla compatible wrappers instead of ActiveX wrappers for the methods. If I simplified it ever so slightly, I could actually use the same IDL file for both too, just use the different wrapper generators.
If you think ActiveX is the problem, you are 100% ignorant of what the problem actually is and why its a problem.
There is absolutely nothing about ActiveX that makes it 'bad' or 'insecure'. How the IE team implemented support for it on the other hand, was horrible.
Blaming ActiveX for IE's problems is roughly the same as blaming Nintendo because you threw your Wiimote through your big ass plasma screen in a fit of rage.
I beg you, please stop spreading such ignorant FUD.:END ActiveX IGNORANCE RANT:
The criminal/socially unacceptable elements are legitimizing the currency by applying value
So some bored kid modifies a standard off the shelf virus to go specifically after a given file on your computer, that is in effect worthless... it suddenly becomes worth something? You must be one of the morons who bought into Bitcoin. They aren't attacking so much to do something with your bitcoin, its more like mugging you and taking your wallet then throwing it away later. They are going after them just to go after them and cause trouble, NOT to use the crap that is unusable sense no one with half a clue would accept it as payment for anything of actual value.
The primary value of gold is that many people ascribe value to it and wish to possess it.
The primary value of gold is its unique physical properties which are both visually pleasing to most people and very useful in many different processes and industries. It has a higher than normal value because of its rarity. Those two facts give it value, which THEN leads to their being a market for it.
You seem to be totally disconnected from reality as far as what things have value and why.
Bitcoin is something similar in that a very large group of people are beginning to value the electronic currency, thus it has value.
4 is not 'a very large group'. By that same measure however, there is 'a very large group' of idiots who send their bank account info to Nigerian spammers to. Actually, its the same group.
Now we have a socially illegitimate group applying the initial value and then speculators step in
Really? Again trying to ascribe value to something because someone wants to grief you over it? Do you think a gay man is valuable JUST because some idiot homophobe beats him up? Your logic is just dumb.
I do not see Bitcoins ever replacing government currency but I do see it becoming a supplemental tool for securing wealth and providing a medium of exchange detached from economically repressive governments. Any government that taxes represses it's people, the people accept that repression as a necessity to govern the society. Anyway, being able to purchase something without the government being in your business is a true expression of freedom and extends a way for true privacy to be exercised. This scares quite a few people in government and will be incredibly interesting to watch it play out.
Damnit, I got trolled. I didn't realize you were one of those idiots who think taxes are oppression. Without the result of government taxes, I'm rather sure your dumbass would have died from starvation being completely unable to survive in an anarchistic with none of the benefits of civilization to save your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
And every call you make costs you an additional dollar worth of minutes, connected or not. And checking your voice mail costs you. And incoming calls if answered cost an additional $1 plus minutes.
Just because you haven't REALIZED you're getting raped doesn't mean you aren't getting raped.
local calling is unlimited.
But they also expire each month. You're ignoring the fact that you're buying a different type of service for a land line than you are for a wireless option.
There are providers, at least locally, that will be happy to provider you with unlimited * for your wireless device for $100 a month, no extra fees, send them $100, your phone works for any domestic call, data access or texting.
Of course, since you're paying for unlimited, you pay a lot more since its wireless and it has no competition. Your home service exists as it does today because everyone moved to cell phones, meaning land lines could no longer charge extra for shit that didn't cost them. They had to drop their prices to keep the infrastructure in use, and the result is that phone bills for land lines dropped an order of magnitude across the nation as the bills adjusted down to reflect the actual cost of the service provided (because they were no longer the sole supplier, thus the demand for that service dropped).
You'll get more places offering the options you seek when we get more cellular providers, not before then. As long as a few major carriers are the only ones with the money to build the infrastructure (lets ignore the fact that your tax dollars paid for that infrastructure due to government grants as well for the moment), you won't have competition, and the wireless industry will stay exactly like it is.
Fortunately, the wireless industry has one major problem. Like it or not, there is a lot of spectrum out there that can't be monopolized like the standard cellular bands are now, and as technology progresses and it becomes easier and easier for hardware to work on multiple frequency ranges at the same time, we'll see some inventive sole doing something like providing phone services in TV whitespace when possible, 4G when available, ect.
Eventually, technology will allow someone to break the monopoly, until then, you're going to have to look at second rate, fly by night, ghetto wireless providers who typically deal with people who have financial difficulties or credit problems. The up side to that is you'll find a lot of those services aren't priced horribly, and if you get REALLY lucky, you'll find one of those services that actually is good (some of them are, Cricket here actually does better than most of the local providers for coverage even though they are just piggy backing on the other towers (don't ask me how it manages for them to get better coverage, they seem to be able to bend the laws of physics here). The some how manage to keep connections in areas where other providers drop them. I'd jump ship to them in a heart beat, but I don't really need unlimited and I'm well out of contract already anyway, so I'd rather just keep whoring myself out to AT&T to keep visual voicemail until (hopefully) visual voicemail isn't limited to a couple providers.
I think the solution is to require software companies to put their code into escrow.
The instant they stop supporting it, the code in escrow is released to the public.
They get copyright protection and control over their game as long as they give it attention, when they don't give it any attention, they relinquish control.
Everyone wins. They get the protection of copyright (which when used fairly ISN'T a bad thing, but its invariably abused), and we get to know we're not buying something that the vendor can obsolete on demand based on a whim or ... more likely, greed.
It really should be something like that for all copyrighted items, you only control them as long as you make them available to people in some reasonable form you keep copyright control and determine how it gets distributed. We would need to define a few things like 'reasonable form' which is probably where we'd get fucked but thats another story, heh.
Better Product?
Seriously?
What fucking phone company do you use that has quality as shitty as Skype? My 1998 analog cell phone did better 20 miles away from a tower than Skype does on a good day.
The only people who 'jumped on skype' are people too cheap to pay for a real phone line ... i.e. no one important.
No one who matter uses Skype, they use a real phone. Yes, I realize that some people use Skype for business, and as I said, no one who matters uses Skype. I've seen plenty of sales people using it ... ironically, they are also the lowest performing sales people as well.
It just wreaks of cheapskate and its quality shows when you have to deal with someone on it.
Skype is used by some geeks who don't want to pay for phone service, some sales people who think its saving them a dime when its really costing them a fortune in lost sales, and a whole bunch of horny cheating men and women who use it to communicate with the person they are having an affair with while preventing their significant other from noticing the calls on the phone bill or recent calls list. Thats it.
Really? What number comes before 0 when counting up?
A leech never makes a contribution and sucks your life force out of you.
A shareholder on the other hand MADE a contribution to your company as an investment. Shareholders HAVE contributed to the company and ARE risking something, in many cases more than the people making the decisions.
Once you come down from whatever silly college professor induced hippie thought pattern you got going on in there, you might be able to understand that making money is not a bad thing in and of itself.
Unless they can't sue because the contract stipulates arbitration.
You can stipulate arbitration all day long. The court may even make you do it in an attempt to solve it without being in court ... and then when arbitration is over and you still aren't happy, you can take them to court.
There are certain rights you can't give up in a contract, the right to sue is one of them.
A judge may force them to do arbitration first, but they can still sue if they want. As you said, its all happened recently, judges have even made people go to arbitration ... but never have they been prevented from suing.
Actually, you really don't have to go to arbitration, but you look like a douche when you walk into the court room to call them out because they didn't follow the terms of your contract and you have to follow up your complaint with 'oh yea, and because they didn't follow the contract, I completely ignored how we said we'd handle disputes'.
What risk did they take?
Its not like they weren't getting a paycheck the whole time they were working there.
Just showing up for work and doing your job counts as taking a risk now?
Another good example:
Show one other OS from anyone other Microsoft who has the support lifetime of Microsoft OSes after they are released.
MS supports their OSes longer than ANYONE else in the consumer market. There are probably some IBM or HP installations with older OSes at businesses, and certainly plenty of other old things here and there in SCADA and other various nooks and crannies.
From a consumer view however, no one comes close to offering paid support for a lifetime as long as MS's free support period.
And before anyone starts talking about Ubuntu LTS, no ... its not even really close, try again.
Yea, and there are actually white dudes who can play basketball, black dudes with no rhythm, and asians who suck at math AND can drive a car safely. But those are all exceptions to the generalization and you'd be an idiot to anyone who wasn't a pedantic fuck or a overly sensitive politically correct fairy.
You can point out exceptions to a generalization ALL DAY LONG and it doesn't matter as they are exceptions, not the norm. Yes, a few companies have execs that don't suck, but in generally, execs are lazy over paid greedy useless fucks.
Just finding an exception doesn't change the generalization, it just points out your inability to comprehend the difference between a statement of pure fact and a generalization used to make a point.
But hey, being pedantic douche always makes you friends at parties.
From what you've said, I can safely deduce without any uncertainly that you have never actually used Firefox at any point in your life.
As far as it being a plugin or something, I'll tell you the same thing I told our VoIP provider ...
I don't care WHAT or WHY the exact reason is, when I do A ... B happens. I don't care if its not A's fault, if I don't use it, it doesn't happen so you're choices are to make it so A prevents something else from causing it a problem, or I'll use something else.
No one gives a shit what the specific reason Firefox eats RAM is, it indicates bad design in general.
Windows crashes all the time cause Microsoft writes shitty buggy software. That statement is pretty much 100% false. 10 times out of 8 when a Windows PC crashes its related to a 3rd party driver. But no one gives a shit because Windows has still crashed.
Blame it on other stuff all day long, the rest of us are still going to think of Firefox as wasting a bunch of ram because anyone who uses it finds it wasting a lot of ram. If third party plugins are the problem, and everyone uses 3rd party plugins then the browser is still broken.
Thats 240k/year and doesn't require you to live somewhere that 240k a year isn't a big salary.
240k/year is decent pay for anyone doing that job with the exception to that being the jobs doing it in areas where it costs a million plus a year just to pay your rent.
You're seriously claiming you make 240k/year or more and that that is 'average pay'? What shitty assed city do you live in where thats the case cause there are only a limited number of places where 240k/year is average pay and pretty much none of them are home of software companies that do this sort of thing.
If you meant to say 60k/year is average pay for this sort of work ... then sure, but thats for a years worth of work, not 3 months of spare time.
but they aren't getting rich or even gainfully employed from these activities.
You are completely disconnected from reality, you clearly have no idea what the average salary is for this sort of work.
Do you even have a job and live on your own? The only way I can see someone making these sort of statements is if they are still in high school living at home with absolutely no idea what the real world is actually life when mommy and daddy aren't carrying your weight.
combined upload/download from 4pm to 2am almost every day or just general throttling all day.
Thats not throttling, thats an overloaded ISP who's bandwidth is completely saturated during peak times (which is pretty much 4pm to 2am).
We'll each have 20-40 tabs open at a given time and sift through gigs of data every day.
No you don't. You may have 20-40 tabs open, but I can say without a doubt that you aren't 'sifting through gigs of data every day'. Gigs are not kilobytes, which is likely what you are actually able to process on a daily basis.
20-40 tabs eh? Let me give you the first hint ... if you have 20-40 tabs open, its highly unlike you're actually accomplishing anything with more than about 5 of those tabs, you can ramble on about how you really do use them all actively, but actual research shows that about 1 in a million people can actually keep more than 5-7 active thoughts in their heads at any one time, and by more I mean maybe 8 on a good day. The brain simply doesn't work in a way that makes having that many tabs open efficient in any way.
The reality of it is, everytime I see someone with a fuckton of tabs open what I generally have found is that you're trying to do something you have no clue how to do, no idea how to start finding where to look to do it, and generally clueless about the subject matter in general.
Yes, I sound condescending and like I'm just being a dick and calling you a liar. And I am. Your trying to brag about how much you do and you've made it crystal clear you're full of shit :). You may have 20-40 tabs open, but thats simply because you think its cool or your too stupid to close them, it has nothing to do with how much 'data you sift through'.
You may use a bunch of bandwidth in a day, but its not because you need to, its because you're wasteful and inefficient. Bandwidth caps are good for people like you, keeps you from being retarded and wasting everyone elses bandwidth because you spend most of your time downloading shit you'll never see so you can brag on slashdot about how many tabs you have open.
My local ISP already caches itunes, MS, apple, and a whole bunch of other people ... because most ISPs of any size have an Akami CDN node in them, which all these guys use anyway.
MS isn't going to trust your (or the grand parents friends rather) installation of WSUS to function properly consistently OR that you won't fuck with the updates since in order for my PC to trust that WSUS I either have to be on the same domain as it, or it has to use the same private keys that MS uses for distribution ... meaning the ISP would have the data required to code sign as MS ... which will simply never happen.
There is no 'XCode update'.
You're simply reinstalling a full complete copy over the original using the update system.
I've worked on anonymous trusted networks.
No you haven't. Anonymous and trusted are mutually exclusive, and thats why you keep failing.
Seems fairly clear you don't even understand how humans naturally build trust in the real world. Your failure to understand that pretty much precludes you from augmenting it in any working way.
Its okay dude, what he was saying is that even if it was a slashvertisment, its okay because this one ACTUALLY BELONGS on slashdot as it truely is news for nerds, regardless of the slavertising part.
This sort of article being submitted to slashdot in an attempt to gain attention for the subject of the article is perfectly acceptable because this is the kind of stuff we WANT to see.
Anyone bitching about slashvertisments in this cause is just being a douche, and the guy you were replying too is basically saying that.
Keep submitting articles like this, slashvertisement or not, this is what want to see ...
What we don't want to see is the article spread out over 20 pages with a paragraph on each page, surrounded by literally 25-30 flash ads that we have to page through.
What we don't want is some random Apple app advertisment, or some go spaming his blog where he makes up some 'top ten' list of 'important events in computing' and you can tell by the list this guy has been using computers all of 15 minutes.
If you don't link to anything that considers itself a 'blog' thats a good start. If you don't link to any 'computer magazine' webiste, then you're doing good.
What not to do: ... which links to the subject matter.
Link to anything OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL STORY. No linking to someones blog which links to the original story. No linking to some random retards (yours included) comments about the subject matter
I could go on, but the point is, the person your replying too isn't bitching about your post, he's defending it.
Using what you describe, you have produced random unusable gibberish on the output.
You can't throw randomness into cryptography, contrary to common belief. Everything has to be known or calculatable in order for the original data to be extracted from the encryption.
Cryptography is VERY complex math, nothing more at this point, with the general idea intended to be to make it take a minimum amount of time to decrypt the data, but making that time long enough to prevent brute forcing from being viable and not allowing for any shortcuts in the math that would narrow down the possibilities for the brute forcer to try.
What you describe just does more of the same thing we do now, you simply don't understand how what your describing actually works. At best, you've just slowed the system down because you've required more calculations. At worst, you've added a why to sidestep portions of the process and possibly find ways to shorten the brute force time of the system.
Adding more to an encryption system is generally not regarded as the solution to the problem, 11 times out of 10, you'll add more bugs that can be exploited to weaken your security than you added additional security anyway. Its a rather common thing to have happen in the cryptography world.
, because RSA/ElGamal is likely much more secure (with reasonable key-lenghts) than AES.
Show me someplace that uses RSA for encryption of raw data.
What you have in the real world EVERYWHERE is that RSA is used for key exchange/session key generation/identity verification ... and AES is used to encrypt the payload data.
Why? asymmetric encryption is extremely processor intensive, too much so to do on any practical scale.
So this quantum stuff is not useless for the reasons you state (although there are actual reasons why its useless) because the reasons you state are how pretty much every cryptosystem on the planet using asymmetric keys works already. What you describe as how quantum crypto works is pretty much how SSL works, except your using some sort of quantum bullshit in place of RSA for session identity verification and key exchange.
before you start telling people how cryptography works, you might actually want to learn how cryptography works.
The fact that they had to invent a name for a bit on quantum computers is where I knew to jump off the train.
Its a bit, there is no need to call it a qbit, it represents the same thing, the smallest amount of information we use in computers. It is either 1 or 0.
The fact that it gets called a qbit instantly lets anyone with a clue know that this is a marketing gimmick and there is no useful value to quantum computing at this time. You don't have to call useful things by new entirely different wanna be trendy names in order for them to be useful, the fact that they've done so means their trying to convince normal people of its value by making it sound trendy than actually showing a useful value to it.
There isn't a current quantum computing implementation that has any practical value beyond research of quantum computing. The fact of the matter is, right this instant, anything we can do with a quantum computer we can do faster, cheaper, smaller, with less resources and in less time to build with standard hardware.
Anyone who buys into quantum computing at this point is an ignorant idiot at best, it gets worse from there, and yes, I realize a major defense contractor just bought one, and my point still standards considering who within that organization bought the device.
Yea, because the browser doesn't already do that in hundreds of places in order to perform as fast as possible.
If you're using a firefox backed by Cairo, you're most certainly using OS specific extensions or using an OS with no features worth talking too.
The browser is the shim between the presentation layer of the native OS and the web. Its very job is to provide the native hooks in uniform way so that web pages are rendered.
You have to be tightly coupled with the OSes native features if you want your web browser to work. How do you intend to draw to the screen? You realize that Firefox uses OS specific APIs for doing its IO right? Its not like it uses kpoll for sockets on Windows or OSX. The browsers job is to provide a common interface between the OS and the web so that the web can be experienced on the OS.
Your app won't be doing any graphics or sound without being tightly coupled to the OS, even if you're using some API like OGL and OAL, they are still tightly coupled with the OS, you're just ignoring that fact for the sake of your point of view.
write once, debug everywhere in my experience.
:BEGIN ActiveX IGNORANCE RANT: ... right? Just like the one Mozilla has, and Chrome, and Safari, and Opera ...
You do realize that ActiveX is just a plugin system
Its just a COM object, you know Mozilla uses its own variation of COM called XPCOM ... which actually less secure than ActiveX. In order to get ActiveX to load in a browser AT ALL, the developer has to mark the object as safe for use in the browser, then if you want to access it via javascript, it also has to be marked for that by the developer. XPCOM has no such flags, though it does use additional security mechanisms to accomplish the same thing, so they are functionally the same with one major exception:
ActiveX is a system wide plugin implementation.
IE had some stupid defaults, and MS developer made a habit of marking all kinds of ActiveX objects as safe for use in a browser and scripting when they never should have been marked as such. Then when they first added support to IE for it, they defaulted to accepting them all, then the changed to defaulting if the ActiveX object was digitally signed to be more secure, which of course took 24 hours for new controls to be released with digital signatures on them from the bad guys, but it did cut out most of the accidentally 'safe for web/scripting' controls since they hadnt' been digitally signed.
Now days, it takes an actual exploit to get unknown code to run in IE, otherwise the user has to click Yes somewhere.
Yes, the IE implementation to use ActiveX what a prime example of how not to design software which is intended to documents from untrusted sources, but it was purely the IE implementation that was bad, and the real problem was defaulting to allow instead of deny or prompt.
If ActiveX is bad, so is XPCOM and all mozilla plugins, and well, all plugins in general, regardless of browser or application. I have plugins that compile for both ActiveX and XPCOM with nothing more than a change of the IDL compiler so it generate mozilla compatible wrappers instead of ActiveX wrappers for the methods. If I simplified it ever so slightly, I could actually use the same IDL file for both too, just use the different wrapper generators.
If you think ActiveX is the problem, you are 100% ignorant of what the problem actually is and why its a problem.
There is absolutely nothing about ActiveX that makes it 'bad' or 'insecure'. How the IE team implemented support for it on the other hand, was horrible.
Blaming ActiveX for IE's problems is roughly the same as blaming Nintendo because you threw your Wiimote through your big ass plasma screen in a fit of rage.
I beg you, please stop spreading such ignorant FUD. :END ActiveX IGNORANCE RANT:
The criminal/socially unacceptable elements are legitimizing the currency by applying value
So some bored kid modifies a standard off the shelf virus to go specifically after a given file on your computer, that is in effect worthless ... it suddenly becomes worth something? You must be one of the morons who bought into Bitcoin. They aren't attacking so much to do something with your bitcoin, its more like mugging you and taking your wallet then throwing it away later. They are going after them just to go after them and cause trouble, NOT to use the crap that is unusable sense no one with half a clue would accept it as payment for anything of actual value.
The primary value of gold is that many people ascribe value to it and wish to possess it.
The primary value of gold is its unique physical properties which are both visually pleasing to most people and very useful in many different processes and industries. It has a higher than normal value because of its rarity. Those two facts give it value, which THEN leads to their being a market for it.
You seem to be totally disconnected from reality as far as what things have value and why.
Bitcoin is something similar in that a very large group of people are beginning to value the electronic currency, thus it has value.
4 is not 'a very large group'. By that same measure however, there is 'a very large group' of idiots who send their bank account info to Nigerian spammers to. Actually, its the same group.
Now we have a socially illegitimate group applying the initial value and then speculators step in
Really? Again trying to ascribe value to something because someone wants to grief you over it? Do you think a gay man is valuable JUST because some idiot homophobe beats him up? Your logic is just dumb.
I do not see Bitcoins ever replacing government currency but I do see it becoming a supplemental tool for securing wealth and providing a medium of exchange detached from economically repressive governments. Any government that taxes represses it's people, the people accept that repression as a necessity to govern the society. Anyway, being able to purchase something without the government being in your business is a true expression of freedom and extends a way for true privacy to be exercised. This scares quite a few people in government and will be incredibly interesting to watch it play out.
Damnit, I got trolled. I didn't realize you were one of those idiots who think taxes are oppression. Without the result of government taxes, I'm rather sure your dumbass would have died from starvation being completely unable to survive in an anarchistic with none of the benefits of civilization to save your ass.