No, you've been asleep for the last 50 or so years.
The coverup doesn't kill you if its successful any more than falling kills you.
Its when the coverup fails or you suddenly stop at the end of the fall that kills you.
Appearently you missed the iran contra affair completely among hundreds of other scandles. When they come out to tell you about how they did something bad, in reality thats just a good cover up, drawing the attention away from the REALLY bad shit they did.
Why? You didn't take a long hard think about it at all.
If you can't saturate the link with one drive, and the standard procedure is to hook one drive to one port, then why do we need something faster now?
Something faster is fine, would even help burst speeds, but its not something we 'need' nor was it 'needed' yesterday for anything other than some silly setup that was never designed to be fast in the first place... i.e. using a port replicator on a laptop.
BOINC pretty much ensures the processor isn't idling, its using the processor constantly, which is drastically different than an idle state, but thanks for looking at it from a completely ignorant point of view.
My PC doing nothing uses less electricity than my PC running BOINC, please explain to me with that in mind how it 'improves efficiency' of what you are calling idle processors. You can't, a processor running BOINC simply isn't idle.
CO2 ratings like this are retarded. As long as I keep seeing measurements in the form of weight rather than mass, I'm going to continue to think of everyone who talks about it as blabbering idiots.
140 tons where? At the surface of the planet or higher up in the atmosphere where it 'weighs' less? A cubic (insert whatever measurement you'd like) at sea level weighs differently than one in Death Valley or one on the ISS.
I might start listening when you start using proper forms of measurement for what you are measuring, until then its just political propoganda used for posturing and furthering some political parties agenda.
If you want to see what domesticated looks like, look at dogs, or horses. Domesticated dogs and horses take their instructions from human masters. Cats, as a rule, don't.
Cats take instructions from their human masters JUST FINE. The problem is that most cat owners aren't the masters. Half of them think of cats as an equal, so the end result is the cat runs the house because the owner is stupid.
Typically I look at cat owners as morons owned by a cat.
You are one of the few I've heard from that I'll say is a cat owner.
Treat a cat like you're the boss and it will respect you and act sane. Let a cat realize that you're a pushover and it will be the boss. Its not really the cats fault, its just that 99 times out of a 100, the cat IS smarter than the owner.
Congratulations for being that 1 person out of a 100 who is actually smarter than their cat:)
Now if we could just get all the Oprah watching, Dr Phil loving idiots of America to get this into their heads maybe we wouldn't have so many little bastards walking around who need their asses kicked.
They aren't, sorry. A cat considers itself better than you, and in 99 out of a 100 cases of cat owners, the cat IS better than the owner.
Cats manipulate their owners on a regular basis, pretty much their entire lives. The only reason it tolerates you is because its easier than the alternative.
They don't like you, they never will, and the instant they realize you are dead they will proceed to eat you.
Most cat owners think cats can't be trained, this is simply false. Its not that they can't be trained its that their owners are too stupid and the end result is that the cat owner gets trained and the cat does whatever the hell it wants.
Treat a cat the same way you treat a dog and things are a whole different world. Treat a dog the same way you treat a cat and once again, you'll get walked on.
Cats aren't special, 99 out of 100 cat people are simply retarded. Sorry for all of you that this pisses off, but its true. I've never met a cat that couldn't be trained once its retarded owner who would let it do whatever the hell it wanted was out of the picture. Take the pushover owner out of the picture, show the cat you are in charge, not it, and the world changes.
This is roughly the same as children. Ever notice that cat owners with kids also typically have brats for children? Neither the cat nor the child is the problem, the adult is just incapable of commanding respect out of others.
Sure it does! Just add a little patch to open source program $foo, make it closed source and sell it. Now $costumer can't profit from upstream bugfixes anymore.
How does this take away from the original code? It doesn't. You are still free to patch the original code to make it work in the modified environment which requires the foo variable, or any other environment for that matter.
Wow, now GPL is a scam? I wonder who's the douchebag, now.
No, GPL isn't a scam. The way its promoted by GPL trolls/zealots like yourself is a scam and a lie.
The problem is when trolls/zealots like yourself think that because you make one tiny contribution to something that instantly everyone else's work should be available to you and that any other way of doing things is wrong and evil.
Per my usual request: What was your old trolling account/uid again I still haven't figured it out.
The original NT stack was BASED ON BSD code, it was not a copy and paste of the BSD code with no modifications.
So... YES, the original code is still free, in fact parts of it are in use in the OSes my OpenBSD firewalls use as well as my FreeBSD web servers.
And also, NO, you can't get the original NT stack because its not JUST BSD code, its BSD code modified to fit into Windows.
The original code is still just as free as it was from day one, the MS modifications however are not. No freedom to anything that already existed was lost, no one took any freedom away. They simply didn't give out their work for free.
If you want to ensure your code is always free you don't use *GPL.
GPL isn't about your code, its about you wanting other people to comply with your idea of freedom by restricting them.
BSD licensed code will always be free, and I wish douche bags like yourself would stop implying that it can somehow be made 'not free'.
Just because someone can use your code in a closed source project doesn't make your code any less free. They don't get ownership of the copyright. They can't make anyone else stop using it. All they can do is make THEIR PORTION OF THE CODE not-free.
Stop acting like *GPL is more free than a BSD license. It is less free, intentionally. It adds restrictions to ensure that everyone has to contribute back to the pot. Thats roughly the same as saying 'Get a years worth of gasoline for free!!! (when you buy this new car from us)'.
Thats not free, thats a scam. You are continuing the scam.
GPL isn't the problem here, its a very valid and useful license, but douche bags like yourself are twisting it and manipulating it into something its not for your own wishes.
Use BSD/MIT if you want attribution for your work and you just want to give people something to use anywhere. Use GPL if you are more concerned with making sure no one builds an entirely new product based around/using your code without giving back to the community.
The two licenses serve different purposes and can serve them well, but using one to push your agenda by propagating falsehoods about how one is 'more free' than the other is wrong, especially when you have it backwards be pretty much every possible definition.
If you want your code to be 'free' as in 'libre' you use BSD/MIT. If you want to make sure someone doesn't just swallow your code and take all of your work and contribute nothing back then you use GPL with its added restrictions.
The RIAA giving radio a compelling reason to play independent artists is exactly what we need.
Great, now instead of listening to at least well produced (probably still bad) music on the radio, now we'll be listening to a bunch of 'indie artists' who don't realize the reason they are 'indie' is because they fucking suck, not because they haven't been discovered.
Some of us with working radios actually listen to it.
When I can listen to 'radio' on my phone, while wondering around the ozarks for days on end, then I might consider no longer listening to radio.
Since my phone requires far to many batteries to do that, and cell coverage in rural areas is a joke on a good day, I don't really think its going away tomorrow just because you don't listen to it.
America isn't just a collection of cities with few people inbetween like europe or japan, we have people all over the country side and alternative broadcast methods aren't good enough to compete with terrestrial radio.
Sat radio is rather useless for emergency broadcasts for many reasons, so you won't see any tornado workings on XM or Sirius since A) they'd have to tell everyone in the country about every warning basically and that'd annoy the piss out of people everywhere else, and well, more important is that XM/Sirius tend to cut own during storms so the people who need the warning would never hear them.
Still want to know why they require drivers. That scares me. Standard USB HID interface allows any USB device to receive arbitrary commands from an application.
I've made an Atmel AT90USBKey demo board do on chip AES using a key generated by a password supplied via a USB HID command. Works in Windows with the pretty gui app written for the task as well as Linux if you want to use some command line tools to manually send the data to the device to supply the key and get the device to make the encrypted area available. Neither Windows nor Linux are anything other than a default install. My prototype is utterly useless from a practical standpoint as the microcontroller involved is just FAR too slow to be useful as a disk device when you throw encryption at it, well hell, it was too slow for me before the encryption was in place, but the point is, there is no reason a driver should be required for any OS, just the app that can talk to it.
If they are requiring drivers then I'm sensing snake oil or lies. If the drivers are doing ANY part of the encryption chain other than sending off a password to the device then its practically pointless if you actually want security. My guess would be they aren't generating the key on chip, the host is doing it and passing it off to the chip, but again, no need for a driver to do that. Requiring drivers is very odd indeed.
(the only flash drive in the world to achieve level 3)
I assure it, it isn't the first or the only. It may be the only one the general public knows about or that is available to the general public, but it is in no way unique or original.
The first IronKeys could just have the flash removed and put onto a controller without encryption. They didn't actually encrypt the data, just made the controller require a password.
This has since been fixed. (Both of these stories were on slashdot over the past few years but I'm too lazy to look it up)
Just for reference, I'm holding in my hand a prototype device that does essentially the same thing except using your fingerprint instead of a password.
Too many wrong fingerprints, data gets destroyed.
Try to physically get to the chip, it self destructs.
The hardware and software involved would have been FIPS certified as well, if the certification company hadn't pointed out what everyone with a clue (i.e. not the marketing morons) already knew, the fingerprint pattern isn't really useful for a key until you make it so low resolution that its practically useless for as a key and too easy to duplicate. Make the pattern matching stuffs use a higher resolution and its too inconsistent to generate a reliable key, and you get false negatives. But replace the finger print pad with a software interface to enter a password/key and you've got the same thing.
Fortunately it never made it to market so no one depends on this thing, but considering that this device is several years old I doubt there aren't several models like the IronKey already in use by people who really need that sort of thing.
I'd give more, but I'm probably already breaking a NDA. Since they've long since went out of business its probably not an issue, but why find out otherwise and piss a bunch of people off.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you've been asleep for the last 50 or so years.
The coverup doesn't kill you if its successful any more than falling kills you.
Its when the coverup fails or you suddenly stop at the end of the fall that kills you.
Appearently you missed the iran contra affair completely among hundreds of other scandles. When they come out to tell you about how they did something bad, in reality thats just a good cover up, drawing the attention away from the REALLY bad shit they did.
Why? You didn't take a long hard think about it at all.
If you can't saturate the link with one drive, and the standard procedure is to hook one drive to one port, then why do we need something faster now?
Something faster is fine, would even help burst speeds, but its not something we 'need' nor was it 'needed' yesterday for anything other than some silly setup that was never designed to be fast in the first place ... i.e. using a port replicator on a laptop.
BOINC pretty much ensures the processor isn't idling, its using the processor constantly, which is drastically different than an idle state, but thanks for looking at it from a completely ignorant point of view.
My PC doing nothing uses less electricity than my PC running BOINC, please explain to me with that in mind how it 'improves efficiency' of what you are calling idle processors. You can't, a processor running BOINC simply isn't idle.
CO2 ratings like this are retarded. As long as I keep seeing measurements in the form of weight rather than mass, I'm going to continue to think of everyone who talks about it as blabbering idiots.
140 tons where? At the surface of the planet or higher up in the atmosphere where it 'weighs' less? A cubic (insert whatever measurement you'd like) at sea level weighs differently than one in Death Valley or one on the ISS.
I might start listening when you start using proper forms of measurement for what you are measuring, until then its just political propoganda used for posturing and furthering some political parties agenda.
They bring dead/half-dead animals home to let you know that you're one step away from being dead if you piss them off, not to feed you or teach you.
Cats take instructions from their human masters JUST FINE. The problem is that most cat owners aren't the masters. Half of them think of cats as an equal, so the end result is the cat runs the house because the owner is stupid.
So ... your cats have you trained pretty well it looks like.
Typically I look at cat owners as morons owned by a cat.
You are one of the few I've heard from that I'll say is a cat owner.
Treat a cat like you're the boss and it will respect you and act sane. Let a cat realize that you're a pushover and it will be the boss. Its not really the cats fault, its just that 99 times out of a 100, the cat IS smarter than the owner.
Congratulations for being that 1 person out of a 100 who is actually smarter than their cat :)
No cat owner is 'normal' by any sense of the word.
Now if we could just get all the Oprah watching, Dr Phil loving idiots of America to get this into their heads maybe we wouldn't have so many little bastards walking around who need their asses kicked.
First off, I'm sorry.
But ... the cat wasn't trying to heal her, it was preparing to eat her.
No, cats see cat owners as ignorant pushovers and manipulate the shit out of them to do whatever they want.
The cats are right, most cat owners ARE ignorant pushovers who let them do whatever they want because 'thats the way cats are'
Cats are certainly exploiting their owners because their owners are unable to command respect from anything.
They aren't, sorry. A cat considers itself better than you, and in 99 out of a 100 cases of cat owners, the cat IS better than the owner.
Cats manipulate their owners on a regular basis, pretty much their entire lives. The only reason it tolerates you is because its easier than the alternative.
They don't like you, they never will, and the instant they realize you are dead they will proceed to eat you.
Most cat owners think cats can't be trained, this is simply false. Its not that they can't be trained its that their owners are too stupid and the end result is that the cat owner gets trained and the cat does whatever the hell it wants.
Treat a cat the same way you treat a dog and things are a whole different world. Treat a dog the same way you treat a cat and once again, you'll get walked on.
Cats aren't special, 99 out of 100 cat people are simply retarded. Sorry for all of you that this pisses off, but its true. I've never met a cat that couldn't be trained once its retarded owner who would let it do whatever the hell it wanted was out of the picture. Take the pushover owner out of the picture, show the cat you are in charge, not it, and the world changes.
This is roughly the same as children. Ever notice that cat owners with kids also typically have brats for children? Neither the cat nor the child is the problem, the adult is just incapable of commanding respect out of others.
How does this take away from the original code? It doesn't. You are still free to patch the original code to make it work in the modified environment which requires the foo variable, or any other environment for that matter.
No, GPL isn't a scam. The way its promoted by GPL trolls/zealots like yourself is a scam and a lie.
The problem is when trolls/zealots like yourself think that because you make one tiny contribution to something that instantly everyone else's work should be available to you and that any other way of doing things is wrong and evil.
Per my usual request: What was your old trolling account/uid again I still haven't figured it out.
The original NT stack was BASED ON BSD code, it was not a copy and paste of the BSD code with no modifications.
So ... YES, the original code is still free, in fact parts of it are in use in the OSes my OpenBSD firewalls use as well as my FreeBSD web servers.
And also, NO, you can't get the original NT stack because its not JUST BSD code, its BSD code modified to fit into Windows.
The original code is still just as free as it was from day one, the MS modifications however are not. No freedom to anything that already existed was lost, no one took any freedom away. They simply didn't give out their work for free.
Not sure why thats so hard to grasp.
Computer Courage is an amazing thing.
If you want to ensure your code is always free you don't use *GPL.
GPL isn't about your code, its about you wanting other people to comply with your idea of freedom by restricting them.
BSD licensed code will always be free, and I wish douche bags like yourself would stop implying that it can somehow be made 'not free'.
Just because someone can use your code in a closed source project doesn't make your code any less free. They don't get ownership of the copyright. They can't make anyone else stop using it. All they can do is make THEIR PORTION OF THE CODE not-free.
Stop acting like *GPL is more free than a BSD license. It is less free, intentionally. It adds restrictions to ensure that everyone has to contribute back to the pot. Thats roughly the same as saying 'Get a years worth of gasoline for free!!! (when you buy this new car from us)'.
Thats not free, thats a scam. You are continuing the scam.
GPL isn't the problem here, its a very valid and useful license, but douche bags like yourself are twisting it and manipulating it into something its not for your own wishes.
Use BSD/MIT if you want attribution for your work and you just want to give people something to use anywhere. Use GPL if you are more concerned with making sure no one builds an entirely new product based around/using your code without giving back to the community.
The two licenses serve different purposes and can serve them well, but using one to push your agenda by propagating falsehoods about how one is 'more free' than the other is wrong, especially when you have it backwards be pretty much every possible definition.
If you want your code to be 'free' as in 'libre' you use BSD/MIT. If you want to make sure someone doesn't just swallow your code and take all of your work and contribute nothing back then you use GPL with its added restrictions.
Great, now instead of listening to at least well produced (probably still bad) music on the radio, now we'll be listening to a bunch of 'indie artists' who don't realize the reason they are 'indie' is because they fucking suck, not because they haven't been discovered.
NAB should have stood up for Pandora which is really just another form of broadcasting, but they didn't. They made their bed, time to sleep in it.
Some of us with working radios actually listen to it.
When I can listen to 'radio' on my phone, while wondering around the ozarks for days on end, then I might consider no longer listening to radio.
Since my phone requires far to many batteries to do that, and cell coverage in rural areas is a joke on a good day, I don't really think its going away tomorrow just because you don't listen to it.
America isn't just a collection of cities with few people inbetween like europe or japan, we have people all over the country side and alternative broadcast methods aren't good enough to compete with terrestrial radio.
Sat radio is rather useless for emergency broadcasts for many reasons, so you won't see any tornado workings on XM or Sirius since A) they'd have to tell everyone in the country about every warning basically and that'd annoy the piss out of people everywhere else, and well, more important is that XM/Sirius tend to cut own during storms so the people who need the warning would never hear them.
Still want to know why they require drivers. That scares me. Standard USB HID interface allows any USB device to receive arbitrary commands from an application.
I've made an Atmel AT90USBKey demo board do on chip AES using a key generated by a password supplied via a USB HID command. Works in Windows with the pretty gui app written for the task as well as Linux if you want to use some command line tools to manually send the data to the device to supply the key and get the device to make the encrypted area available. Neither Windows nor Linux are anything other than a default install. My prototype is utterly useless from a practical standpoint as the microcontroller involved is just FAR too slow to be useful as a disk device when you throw encryption at it, well hell, it was too slow for me before the encryption was in place, but the point is, there is no reason a driver should be required for any OS, just the app that can talk to it.
If they are requiring drivers then I'm sensing snake oil or lies. If the drivers are doing ANY part of the encryption chain other than sending off a password to the device then its practically pointless if you actually want security. My guess would be they aren't generating the key on chip, the host is doing it and passing it off to the chip, but again, no need for a driver to do that. Requiring drivers is very odd indeed.
I assure it, it isn't the first or the only. It may be the only one the general public knows about or that is available to the general public, but it is in no way unique or original.
Its not hard to make it secure actually, its just traditionally been too damn expensive to do it and make any money.
The first IronKeys could just have the flash removed and put onto a controller without encryption. They didn't actually encrypt the data, just made the controller require a password.
This has since been fixed. (Both of these stories were on slashdot over the past few years but I'm too lazy to look it up)
Just for reference, I'm holding in my hand a prototype device that does essentially the same thing except using your fingerprint instead of a password.
Too many wrong fingerprints, data gets destroyed.
Try to physically get to the chip, it self destructs.
The hardware and software involved would have been FIPS certified as well, if the certification company hadn't pointed out what everyone with a clue (i.e. not the marketing morons) already knew, the fingerprint pattern isn't really useful for a key until you make it so low resolution that its practically useless for as a key and too easy to duplicate. Make the pattern matching stuffs use a higher resolution and its too inconsistent to generate a reliable key, and you get false negatives. But replace the finger print pad with a software interface to enter a password/key and you've got the same thing.
Fortunately it never made it to market so no one depends on this thing, but considering that this device is several years old I doubt there aren't several models like the IronKey already in use by people who really need that sort of thing.
I'd give more, but I'm probably already breaking a NDA. Since they've long since went out of business its probably not an issue, but why find out otherwise and piss a bunch of people off.