If the students are that irresponsible (synonyms: reckless, careless, negligent, foolish, rash, immature), then they probably should not get paid when they can't comply with the requirements of the job. If that means they need to waste a hour to get back to the dorm room to retrieve their badge, or pay a fee to reprocess them for a lost badge, then I would think the problem would take care of itself after a few occasions.
if you were to stick your hand into the space through which information is being "teleported" the perfectly ordinary classical carrier particles would burn a hole through it.
I'm going to have a bit of fun with this by taking what you wrote literally.
So basically, if we were to do a lot of these information transfers we would create something like a beam. Mount it on a sword and you have a vibro-sword. Or a "quantum scalpel!"
Umm, there was a recent report (google it) that most PUBLIC school kids prefer socializing on the web (facebook, etc), texting, chat, MMO, etc. I don't think your daughter is abnormal in that respect at all. She is abnormal in that she sounds way above the average public school kids in academic achievement.
You are either nuts, trolling, or woefully uninformed. For proper VoIP, or any protocol that requires minimal delay, jitter, and packet loss, QoS is necessary. With a proper QoS setup you should not have any issues. Without QoS, reliability is not guaranteed.
I was thinking the same thing. "Dan Lyons," where did I hear that name before? Oh yes! He's that shill. He irreparably damaged his reputation in the SCO fiasco, and anything he says now, or writes, will be forever tarnished. The only reason I read this Slashdot story was to see if anyone else recalled his involvement. I certainly won't be reading his actual article, or even participating in the "debate" over it's contents, as that is actually what he wants to foster. I'd say let this story die.
So there's a semiconductor executive that is talking about classified information in an interview? His/Her clearance should be revoked, at least temporarily, until an investigation can be performed to determine whether any laws were broken, and how long the executive should serve.
I would have to agree. Having obtained my CCIE Security this year (no I wasn't the one that passed the new 3.0 blueprint), and having a CISSP for a few years, I can say from my experience that there are likely well over 1000 experts in the country. Heck, we have quite a few experts in the company I work for now, and no it's not Cisco. In fact, Cisco calls us in to fix problems they can't from time to time. I doubt that any of them would want to work directly for the government though; I certainly would not. Consulting work for the government, sure, but not a government employee. His point seems to be that he doesn't know that many security experts, so they must not be out there. From his article, it appears that he knows a few subject matter experts, but he points out himself that they are not all-around experts. To quote "I was an expert in AV, IDS, and other areas. But I was not the all knowing security guru." That's two listed technologies and one all-encompassing "other" category. And apparently this expert "was," no longer "is." Now, I'm not calling them out, and I'm not going to compare resumes in a public forum. I'm just saying, when his own experts say they were an expert, maybe he's not talking to the right experts...
How is that racist? As far as I know, people of all races have joined the lunatics who launched the attacks. There's even a "white" american or two who have joined, are gained some prominence for doing so. I think everyone is getting a little tired of the old racist claim.
You're not thinking out of the box. Sure SecurID is a one-time password system, but that doesn't mean it still can't be exploited. If the keylogger is sophisticated enough to be able to pick out the username, pin, and tokencode, it is sophisticated enough to send the real tokencode to the hacker, in real time, while fudging it up for the user. Passwords are usually masked anyway, so the user would never know that the keylogger changed the tokencode. The hacker logs in, and the user tries again, possibly waiting for the next tokencode.
While you make some cogent arguments they are all misplaced. The fee part is about charging a fee for the source, not the binaries. Apple doesn't distribute the source, so your points on that topic are nonsensical.
Your comments about not being able to make the sources runnable are also not accurate. You can make the binaries runnable by using the developer kit, which I believe is free (for non-commercial use). You would need a Mac, just as you would need a Windows license to compile any Windows GPL software. Again, it sounds good, but your arguments just fall flat.
There is much misunderstanding about source distribution requirements. Much like the fact that you CAN use a GPL software in-house, with custom changes, and never have to share those changes with anyone else, as long as you don't distribute it outside of your organization, the finer points of the making the source available if you do distribute are often lost on many people.
They are not in legal trouble, and they are not in any sort of "spirit" trouble either. Stop spreading FUD and misunderstanding. The binary is sold, which is perfectly legal. The source is available, and can be compiled and run by anyone who takes the time to build it.
If you didn't know there IS a free app called Beta Helper that will tell you the unique identifier for your iPod/iPhone. Here's a description:
iPhone an iPod touch applications can be installed without the App Store for prototyping and enterprise use. For this AdHoc installation you have to give the device ID (unique identifier) to the programmer or administrator. By now, you can only read it with a Mac, which has the iPhone SDK installed. BetaHelper changes that! This program reads the device ID directily on the device and can send it to any email recipient. It's that easy!
So please, stop spreading FUD, and someone mod the parent down.
Ever since I saw the ads in the technical trade rags that NcSoft did for Microsoft and their "truth" campaign I de-installed the three games I purchased from them and haven't reinstalled them yet. I'll stick with other game vendors, thank you.
While technically correct, a subsidy is more commonly used to describe an outright grant of money, with no requirement to pay it back. Such as the government subsidizing PBS, or the Arts programs, or giving grants for medical research. A loan guarantee, which is what the article is talking about, is not what most people would call a subsidy.
You could also say that solar technology is highly subsidized by the government, and otherwise isn't profitable.
Some of them are financing, which if just a loan guarantee is what people are talking about for the nuclear industry in the future, but some are outright tax breaks (grants, or real subsidies).
And that is where there is disagreement. You try and phrase it such that only the uneducated question the validity of the claims that global warming is "proven." That is not the case. The marvels of mobile phones, computers, satnavs, and nuclear medicine? They are not marvels to me, nor many other people. I have a fairly decent understand of all of the technologies involved, and in some what would be considered expert level. In all of these fields, the science is solid. You, or anyone else, can't honestly say the same thing about climatology. If you do, you are deluding yourself and acting irrational. It's not magic, and it's not solid science. It's computer models built with in some cases unfounded assumptions, and in all cases incomplete. What the climate is doing right now doesn't even match the predictions.
If you're worried about restarting civilization, check out Lucifer's Hammer. Seal and bury books - the computers certainly are not going to work.
It is not "so it goes with climate science." That is the root of the disagreement. You assume that because there were a bunch of scientists, that are actually a miniority of scientists in the field, colluded in convincing people that there is some specific threat that they are correct. There has BEEN 10 years of study, and they have been proven wrong.
It is not being irrational to believe that people, scientists included, have alterior motives and/or have talked themselves or let themselves be talked into believing falsehoods. It would be if there were some actual proof of global warming, or if there were not so many scientists in the field that are questioning the methods and interpretation of the results of experiments, but there is not.
This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the fact that ignorance is not a valid opinion. If you don't know and aren't qualified, you should believe the consensus. Because as far as you can tell it is the best current bet.
Now, that sounds real scientific and logical, but to some that sounds like religion. If you don't know and aren't qualified, you should believe the consensus? That sounds a lot like what a religion would say to doubtful or non-believers. In the past, scientists proved their discoveries. Now, the general public is urged to just shut-up and believe, because we are not qualified. That is what is suspicious in the whole debate, let alone that it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no consensus as once claimed, and possibly there never was.
No, I didn't RFTA, but I would have to assume that the law is geared towards harrassing speech at a particular person, not a group, company, policy, product, religion, or I would even say, race, sexual perversion, etc. This is specifically with the knowledge and understanding that companies are considered "people" for certain legal issues - they would be exempt from this particular type of harrassment. To use your example, you can criticize the KKK all you want, but if you are vindictive against a particular KKK member by the name of John Doe who lives at 123 KKK Lane and repeatedly harrass them, they should have some recourse to spot that harrassment. You should not be able to "stalk" them on-line any more than you could stalk them in the normal sense of the term. Again, without RTFA I can't say for sure, but if this is just bringing reaction to activities on-line on par with the reaction people would have with similar actions outside of the Internet then I wouldn't have a problem with it. If it is attempting to make activities on-line illegal, when similar activities are not illegal now outside of the Internet, then it would be a growth of government, which I would be against.
That is not what was originally requested. What was originally requested was to have the provider do the search. Uploading keywords that the provider can search, or any other sort of index, is also not what was requested. What was requested was to have the provider search the actual data, not some cleartext index or keywords attached to the encrypted data. Your solution also makes little to no sense to upload the encrypted index if you are just going to download it again to search it locally. You may as well just keep the index locally, and not upload it at all. If you do that, well then the provider isn't doing the search at all now, is it? You are doing the search, and the provider is just storing the encrypted files. It just servers up file 000001 when requested. So, doing exactly what was requested is not theoretically possible. Doing something else that was not requested is of course theoretically possible, because you get to define what those requirements are.
Slashdot Mirror
If the students are that irresponsible (synonyms: reckless, careless, negligent, foolish, rash, immature), then they probably should not get paid when they can't comply with the requirements of the job. If that means they need to waste a hour to get back to the dorm room to retrieve their badge, or pay a fee to reprocess them for a lost badge, then I would think the problem would take care of itself after a few occasions.
I'm going to have a bit of fun with this by taking what you wrote literally.
So basically, if we were to do a lot of these information transfers we would create something like a beam. Mount it on a sword and you have a vibro-sword. Or a "quantum scalpel!"
Do you know there's a blizzard in Washington, D.C. right now?
Umm, there was a recent report (google it) that most PUBLIC school kids prefer socializing on the web (facebook, etc), texting, chat, MMO, etc. I don't think your daughter is abnormal in that respect at all. She is abnormal in that she sounds way above the average public school kids in academic achievement.
You are either nuts, trolling, or woefully uninformed. For proper VoIP, or any protocol that requires minimal delay, jitter, and packet loss, QoS is necessary. With a proper QoS setup you should not have any issues. Without QoS, reliability is not guaranteed.
What's with all of the requests / demands for "citations?" This is Slashdot, not Wikipedia...
Fined? So what should we do to climate researchers who make up data, behead them?
I think it means that Google employees and partners should not be using Google to search for information related to their business plans.
I was thinking the same thing. "Dan Lyons," where did I hear that name before? Oh yes! He's that shill. He irreparably damaged his reputation in the SCO fiasco, and anything he says now, or writes, will be forever tarnished. The only reason I read this Slashdot story was to see if anyone else recalled his involvement. I certainly won't be reading his actual article, or even participating in the "debate" over it's contents, as that is actually what he wants to foster. I'd say let this story die.
So there's a semiconductor executive that is talking about classified information in an interview? His/Her clearance should be revoked, at least temporarily, until an investigation can be performed to determine whether any laws were broken, and how long the executive should serve.
I would have to agree. Having obtained my CCIE Security this year (no I wasn't the one that passed the new 3.0 blueprint), and having a CISSP for a few years, I can say from my experience that there are likely well over 1000 experts in the country. Heck, we have quite a few experts in the company I work for now, and no it's not Cisco. In fact, Cisco calls us in to fix problems they can't from time to time. I doubt that any of them would want to work directly for the government though; I certainly would not. Consulting work for the government, sure, but not a government employee. His point seems to be that he doesn't know that many security experts, so they must not be out there. From his article, it appears that he knows a few subject matter experts, but he points out himself that they are not all-around experts. To quote "I was an expert in AV, IDS, and other areas. But I was not the all knowing security guru." That's two listed technologies and one all-encompassing "other" category. And apparently this expert "was," no longer "is." Now, I'm not calling them out, and I'm not going to compare resumes in a public forum. I'm just saying, when his own experts say they were an expert, maybe he's not talking to the right experts...
How is that racist? As far as I know, people of all races have joined the lunatics who launched the attacks. There's even a "white" american or two who have joined, are gained some prominence for doing so. I think everyone is getting a little tired of the old racist claim.
You're not thinking out of the box. Sure SecurID is a one-time password system, but that doesn't mean it still can't be exploited. If the keylogger is sophisticated enough to be able to pick out the username, pin, and tokencode, it is sophisticated enough to send the real tokencode to the hacker, in real time, while fudging it up for the user. Passwords are usually masked anyway, so the user would never know that the keylogger changed the tokencode. The hacker logs in, and the user tries again, possibly waiting for the next tokencode.
While you make some cogent arguments they are all misplaced. The fee part is about charging a fee for the source, not the binaries. Apple doesn't distribute the source, so your points on that topic are nonsensical.
Your comments about not being able to make the sources runnable are also not accurate. You can make the binaries runnable by using the developer kit, which I believe is free (for non-commercial use). You would need a Mac, just as you would need a Windows license to compile any Windows GPL software. Again, it sounds good, but your arguments just fall flat.
There is much misunderstanding about source distribution requirements. Much like the fact that you CAN use a GPL software in-house, with custom changes, and never have to share those changes with anyone else, as long as you don't distribute it outside of your organization, the finer points of the making the source available if you do distribute are often lost on many people.
They are not in legal trouble, and they are not in any sort of "spirit" trouble either. Stop spreading FUD and misunderstanding. The binary is sold, which is perfectly legal. The source is available, and can be compiled and run by anyone who takes the time to build it.
If you didn't know there IS a free app called Beta Helper that will tell you the unique identifier for your iPod/iPhone. Here's a description:
iPhone an iPod touch applications can be installed without the App Store for prototyping and enterprise use. For this AdHoc installation you have to give the device ID (unique identifier) to the programmer or administrator. By now, you can only read it with a Mac, which has the iPhone SDK installed. BetaHelper changes that! This program reads the device ID directily on the device and can send it to any email recipient. It's that easy!
So please, stop spreading FUD, and someone mod the parent down.
Then the original authors should have picked a different license.
Ever since I saw the ads in the technical trade rags that NcSoft did for Microsoft and their "truth" campaign I de-installed the three games I purchased from them and haven't reinstalled them yet. I'll stick with other game vendors, thank you.
So malware changes the search engine option to Bing, which just came out, and is a Microsoft product / service. Right. That is so logical.
While technically correct, a subsidy is more commonly used to describe an outright grant of money, with no requirement to pay it back. Such as the government subsidizing PBS, or the Arts programs, or giving grants for medical research. A loan guarantee, which is what the article is talking about, is not what most people would call a subsidy.
You could also say that solar technology is highly subsidized by the government, and otherwise isn't profitable.
Solar Financing, Subsidies, and Incentives
Some of them are financing, which if just a loan guarantee is what people are talking about for the nuclear industry in the future, but some are outright tax breaks (grants, or real subsidies).
And that is where there is disagreement. You try and phrase it such that only the uneducated question the validity of the claims that global warming is "proven." That is not the case. The marvels of mobile phones, computers, satnavs, and nuclear medicine? They are not marvels to me, nor many other people. I have a fairly decent understand of all of the technologies involved, and in some what would be considered expert level. In all of these fields, the science is solid. You, or anyone else, can't honestly say the same thing about climatology. If you do, you are deluding yourself and acting irrational. It's not magic, and it's not solid science. It's computer models built with in some cases unfounded assumptions, and in all cases incomplete. What the climate is doing right now doesn't even match the predictions.
If you're worried about restarting civilization, check out Lucifer's Hammer. Seal and bury books - the computers certainly are not going to work.
It is not "so it goes with climate science." That is the root of the disagreement. You assume that because there were a bunch of scientists, that are actually a miniority of scientists in the field, colluded in convincing people that there is some specific threat that they are correct. There has BEEN 10 years of study, and they have been proven wrong.
It is not being irrational to believe that people, scientists included, have alterior motives and/or have talked themselves or let themselves be talked into believing falsehoods. It would be if there were some actual proof of global warming, or if there were not so many scientists in the field that are questioning the methods and interpretation of the results of experiments, but there is not.
Now, that sounds real scientific and logical, but to some that sounds like religion. If you don't know and aren't qualified, you should believe the consensus? That sounds a lot like what a religion would say to doubtful or non-believers. In the past, scientists proved their discoveries. Now, the general public is urged to just shut-up and believe, because we are not qualified. That is what is suspicious in the whole debate, let alone that it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no consensus as once claimed, and possibly there never was.
And why was access to that management interface allowed from the Internet, presumably?
Certain Cisco switches have limited lifetime warraties now also.
No, I didn't RFTA, but I would have to assume that the law is geared towards harrassing speech at a particular person, not a group, company, policy, product, religion, or I would even say, race, sexual perversion, etc. This is specifically with the knowledge and understanding that companies are considered "people" for certain legal issues - they would be exempt from this particular type of harrassment. To use your example, you can criticize the KKK all you want, but if you are vindictive against a particular KKK member by the name of John Doe who lives at 123 KKK Lane and repeatedly harrass them, they should have some recourse to spot that harrassment. You should not be able to "stalk" them on-line any more than you could stalk them in the normal sense of the term. Again, without RTFA I can't say for sure, but if this is just bringing reaction to activities on-line on par with the reaction people would have with similar actions outside of the Internet then I wouldn't have a problem with it. If it is attempting to make activities on-line illegal, when similar activities are not illegal now outside of the Internet, then it would be a growth of government, which I would be against.
Electricity does not flow through cables at the speed of light. It is more like 2/3rd the speed of light...
That is not what was originally requested. What was originally requested was to have the provider do the search. Uploading keywords that the provider can search, or any other sort of index, is also not what was requested. What was requested was to have the provider search the actual data, not some cleartext index or keywords attached to the encrypted data. Your solution also makes little to no sense to upload the encrypted index if you are just going to download it again to search it locally. You may as well just keep the index locally, and not upload it at all. If you do that, well then the provider isn't doing the search at all now, is it? You are doing the search, and the provider is just storing the encrypted files. It just servers up file 000001 when requested. So, doing exactly what was requested is not theoretically possible. Doing something else that was not requested is of course theoretically possible, because you get to define what those requirements are.