OK, here's one for the physicists in the audience (and pardon the simplification of terms here, but...)
1) Being deeper in a gravity well slows time relative to being further out. 2) All things which have mass have gravity wells. 3) Photons have mass (NOTE TO THE CLUELESS: "mass" and "rest mass" are two different things - photons have no rest mass, but they most certainly have relativistic mass). 4) By 2 and 3 photons should have a (small) gravity well. More massive photons (higher energy and thus shorter wavelength) have deeper wells.
Thus, wouldn't 1 and 4 lead to higher energy photons "clocks running slower" (since they are deeper in a gravity well) and thus propagating as a lower speed as viewed by an observer outside their gravity well - and that effect would be negligible for all but the most massive photons.
(for the physicists: feel free to expand and clarify on the oversimplifications I've made here. This is, after all, targeting a Slashdot audience which has rather a wide spread of backgrounds).
Just one thing to keep in mind: the display, no matter what, won't be any larger than the subtended angle of the display apparatus as viewed by the eye. In other words, if you have a display covering 90 degrees of your field of view, then the apparatus generating that display will have to cover 90 degrees of your field of view.
Now, that apparatus may be transparent and not interfere with viewing the rest of the world in that 90 degrees, but this doesn't mean that some little bug-like object on a lamppost twenty feet away is going to be able to target your eye and draw an advertisement that subtends 90 degrees of your field of view, since the little bug-like object doesn't subtend that 90 degrees - it will be able to make an advertisement no bigger than the bug looks to you.
Really, this isn't much different than the head mounted display I was playing with years ago, which had a small mirror in front of the eye, and a display module that clipped to the side of your glasses. This just uses lasers rather than diodes.
"I am hopeful that any information I may need that was only ever hosted on some guy's Geocities site (probably in SiliconValley) has been archived."
This idea that anything on the Internet shall live forever is demonstrably false. If a web page contains content you want to have forever after, save it yourself, to media you control.
Sure, that embarrassing picture of you, the chocolate pudding, and the goat will live forever, but anything YOU want to survive will vanish faster than a top quark.
Old Faithful, Yellowstone National Park, WY Craters of the Moon National Park, ID
Then there's a couple of just neat places: Big Brutus, West Mineral, KS Castle Rock, Quinter, KS the Bonner Springs Renaissance Festival Park, Bonner Springs, KS
"Or the Thorium in Coleman lantern mantels [sic]?"
First of all, the Thorium was in the mantles not for its radioactivity, but for its candoluminescence (it makes a lot of visible light when hot, but not a lot of infrared).
Second of all, Thorium is no longer used in gas lamp mantles for the very reason that it is radioactive. Indeed, the old Coleman factory building in downtown Wichita is a radioactive waste clean-up site.
I'm not sure a mouse needs to be "multi-touch", in the same way that I don't think a mouse should respond to voice commands (sorry, Cmdr. Scott....).
Multi-touch makes sense for touch screens or track pads, as it changes them from a "cave-man" interface where the only real choices you have is "grunt" (tap), "grunt-grunt" (double-tap), and "uuuuuuugh!" (drag), into an interface where you have a few more choices (multi-finger drag, pinch, etc.).
The mouse already underwent such a change, when multiple buttons were added. I don't know if trying to map things you do on a flat panel onto things you do to a mouse makes any more sense than trying to make a joystick "multi-touch".
What is wrong with different interfaces having different semantics? I don't expect to drive my car with a touchpad, use a mouse to control my stove, or do word-processing with a steering wheel.
Web pages and web applications are different, so perhaps we need a new URL type?
Consider: the original purpose of HTTP was HyperTEXT Transport protocol: a means to have linked TEXT pages. Thus, such pages were not a Turing Complete language (indeed, they weren't any form of "active" language at all, just a markup presentation layer). As such, they were simple to evaluate from a security protocol standpoint.
Since then, the web has evolved into a collection of Web pages (text, graphics, but basically NOT "active") and Web Applications (things like Google Maps).
To be an "active" page pretty much requires a Turning Complete language, and it is impossible to fully say that a Turing Complete language is "safe" (at a minimum, you cannot guarantee halting, so you have a denial of service attack if nothing else).
What if we separate the idea of a "Web Page" and a "Web Application", and put certain rules on each (web pages should not require Turing Complete behavior to operate, Web Applications should be bounded in where the fetch code from)? When the user selects a Web Application, the browser can check if the application has been cleared to run by the user previously, and if not, ask them "You have selected to run a web application 'FutzorJooMachine' from 'evilbad.example.com' - are you sure?" Ideally, the web application should provide to the browser a list of sites and components it plans on using (and the browser should ENFORCE that only those items are used).
Now, if the only difference between a Web Page and a Web Application is the MIME type, then you are going to have a hard time letting the user know when he is about to step on a mine - so what if we create a new transport type, "WATP" (Web Application Transport Protocol), which is the same as HTTP in implementation but has a different default link type, and different permissions from the browser.
That way, things that are supposed to be Web Pages (Yes, 'You Cannot Delete Messages Without Javascript'-Slashdot I am looking at you) can be constrained to a safe set of behaviors (as in NO JAVASCRIPT OF ANY FORM, INCLUDING FLASH), and the web apps can be identified as such and allowed to do what they need to do AT THE USER'S DISCRETION.
"What do you mean the proprietary PyQt is not compatible with the LGPL'd Qt? I should think you can indeed use the proprietary PyQt license with the LPGL'd Qt; the LGPL license certainly allows it."
Perhaps you think that, but Riverbank thinks otherwise, and states so very clearly - I've asked them. You must use the same license for Qt as you do Qt, you cannot use the proprietary PyQt with the LGPL Qt, and that is straight from Riverbank. I am more inclined to trust the word of the people who on the code than the opinions of a large number of Slashbots who have not personally looked into the issue (that's not directed at you, Caseih, but at the myriad of other posters on the board).
Full disclosure: At work, I have a PyQT commercial license. I've had to look into the licensing issues around Qt and PyQt. The following is based upon my reading of the various licences and issues. I am an engineer, not an IP lawyer, and even were I a lawyer, I am not your lawyer - so do your own research.
I am all for supporting companies like Riverbend who offer both GPL and proprietary licenses.
However, there is a complication that Nokia was trying to address here. Whatever license you are using for PyQT you must also be using for Qt, due to the way they are linked.
Now, with Riverbend, the only licenses they offer are GPL and proprietary. That means that if I want to release a proprietary application using PyQt, I must use the proprietary PyQt. However, that means that I now must use the proprietary license for Qt as well. But that now means I have to buy the developer licenses for my team from Nokia - again, not a big deal from an initial monetary outlay.
Now, for my application I cannot use the GPL license because parts of my application are licensed from other people who don't want to GPL their code - it sucks, and I'd rather not deal with it, but when you are in the RF communications business and you have to support CDMA, you HAVE to do business with Qualcomm, and they will NOT change their minds.
So when I ship my app as a Windows or GNU/Linux application, I cannot use the GPL. Now, just considering Qt, I can use the LGPL - the library is dynamically linked against my code, the user can replace the library, all is right with the world.
Except that I cannot use the LGPL for Qt and use PyQt, as PyQt does not support LGPL. So, in case you cannot draw the Venn diagram for yourself, I am left with using the proprietary license for both Qt and PyQt. Now, even though the licensing terms are pretty generous, I still have to track all the licensed code I ship - so you just added a bunch of cost to my accounting of program. This gets even worse when the program is freely available (remember, you can be free and not be Free).
I had contacted Riverbend when Nokia announced the LGPL'ing of Qt, and at that time they said they were considering it. Obviously, they decided they couldn't do it and remain viable as a business - and while that sucks for me, I can certainly understand their point of view. But without the ability to use the LGPL version of Qt from Python, the utility of Qt is greatly diminished. I can understand why Nokia did what they did. Yes, it would have been nice if Nokia could have worked out a way to fund Riverbend such that Riverbend could have LGPL'ed PyQt, but evidently that couldn't happen.
"nice to see how these days Slashdot as a whole rolls over on Free Software as soon as they are bribed with something shiny."
THESE days? As opposed to?
I remember the days of Rob "CmdrTaco" "Debian rulz" Malda running off to run Halflife-2 under Windows, rather than saying "Screw that - if you don't support Linux I ain't playin'".
The/. crowd always has taken teh shinee over Free Software, when the two were mutually exclusive.
Sorry, but the LAST HHGTTG book, "Mostly Harmless", wasn't all that funny, either - and that WAS written by Douglas himself.
Considering that it ended with the destruction of pretty much EVERYTHING, I don't see how the new book could even BE - let alone BE FUNNY, unless the do a complete reboot of the HHGTTG universe.
OK, here's a handy checklist to see if IPv6 is ready for prime time:
Use case: access a common web site (e.g. Slashdot) entirely by IPv6 packets: 1) Look up host's IP via IPv6 packets: 1a) Access a root DNS node via IPv6 packets (look up.org DNS server): CHECK 1b) Access.org DNS node via IPv6 packets (lookup slashdot.org address): ??? 2) Access slashdot.org via IPv6 packets: 2a) Route IPv6 packets from my computer to "the Internet": FAIL 2b) Route IPv6 packets from "the Internet" to Co-Lo facility: ??? 2c) Route IPv6 packets within the Co-Lo to Slashdot's servers: ???
When you (a presumably technically skilled user) can do that, then IPv6 is ready for the masses.
"For all practicality,. when someone says UFO, there talking about aliens."
There is a story about an Air Force officer, who is appointed to the position of Press Liaison (a position he most definitely does NOT want).
So he goes up in a 2 seater fighter jet, with his usual WSO in the back seat. Presently, he says to his WSO "From here on out, I don't want you to say ANYTHING, except for the answers to my questions, which are to be yes, or no. Understood?"
The bemused WSO agrees.
The pilot then says "Do you see, off to our 9 o'clock, a large, glowing object? YES OR NO!"
To which the WSO responds "Y... Yes?"
Pilot: "I am turning to intercept. Can you get a radar return off it?"
WSO: "No"
Pilot: "I am increasing speed to intercept. Speed now Mach 1.2. Are you able to get a radar fix on the object?"
WSO: "No."
Pilot: "Visually, do we appear to be gaining on the object?"
WSO: "No"
Pilot: "Terminating pursuit. Resuming sub-sonic flight and returning to base. Turning 180 degrees."
Pilot: "We have turned 180 degrees. The object appears to be off our tail. Can you confirm visual?"
WSO: "Yes"
Pilot: "Attempting to evade. Speed now Mach 1.5. Does the object appear to be falling behind?"
WSO: "No"
They later land at the base, and the cockpit voice recorder tapes, as transcribed above, somehow are leaked to the press.
The headlines the next day: "AIR FORCE JET CHASES UFO!" "AIR FORCE SEES ALIEN SHIP!" - etc.
Now, in his role as Press Liaison, the pilot faces a press conference, with the WSO in attendance.
Reporter #1: "Is it true you saw an alien craft?!"
Pilot: "No."
Reporter #2: "Is it true you saw a UFO?!"
Pilot: "No."
Reporter #3: "BULL! COVERUP! YOU AREN'T TELLING US THE TRUTH!"
Pilot: "Is that a question? Never mind - here's my Weapon Systems Operator, he was in the back seat of the aircraft. What did you see? What did we chase?"
WSO: "The sun."
Needless to say, the Pilot was relieved of his role as Press Liaison.
Your average LARGE RV - e.g. a 37 foot trailer with 4 slides - is wired for 50A @ 110VAC (here in the US) - that is 55kW. Many RV parks supply only 30A, not 50A - roughly 33kW.
50A is enough to heat your average RV, using only electric heat, in environments down to about 0C (with low wind), while running lights, TV, and the other accouterments of life.
My 4 bedroom house is wired for 200A@110VAC. Very rarely do I even come close to quarter of that.
Moreover, this is 40kW ALL THE TIME - that's 28800 kW*hr - go look at your (or for many Slashdotters, your mother's) electric bill, and see how many kW*hr you used in the hottest part of the summer.
Exactly what I would suggest. Disassemble the drive to what ever level you wish - take out the magnets, remove the circuit boards, whatever.
Take the drive platters + whatever bits of the drive are still attached to them, and place them in your self-cleaning oven.
Turn the oven on to a self-clean cycle.
Several hours later, when the oven has cooled off and unlocked itself, the patters will have hot-soaked long enough to have been well past the Curie point.
No more data.
AND you have a nice, clean oven (after a wipe down with a damp cloth).
This is exactly the same reason that so many police are scared of trunk-tracking scanners.
And that is why APCO-25 specifies, in great detail, how encryption is to be used, and supports several very strong encryptions schemes that Law Enforcement can use, none of which are supported by the trunking scanners, and even were they supported, without the keys, the scanners would STILL be unable to listen in.
I agree with you, AB3A - if the cops want to be private, then let them learn to practice basic OPSEC and INFOSEC.
You say "Or should we lock them out and make them administer the network in person so we can stand behind and watch them?"
Given that you aren't administering your own network, I'd guess that you don't have the skills to do so. Would you know trouble if you saw it?
Would you know enough to see them setting up a remote service that they could get back into? Would you know enough to catch them copying sensitive files from where-ever they live to some staging directory, then later copying that directory off to a flash drive, or to some external server? Would you be able to catch them downloading a root kit and installing it?
In short, given that you don't have the experience to admin your own gear, do you REALLY think "standing behind them and watching them" is going to do anything but waste your time?
And IF you have the skills to admin your own machine, but want to outsource that due to some idea of "I have better things to do than this" - you have the time to stand behind them and watch them do the work, does that not imply you have the time to do the work?
Like others have said: If you are concerned, make them put up a bond.
Kennedy Space Center is a decent museum, but for the money, let me plug The Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center in Hutchinson, KS - they have THE best collection of Russian gear outside of Moscow, as well as a great deal of US gear.
OK, I can see sending what applications are installed and what crashes have occurred given the user's explicit permission - I allow my Ubuntu boxes to participate in the "popularity contest" wherein what apps I install are (anonymously) logged, and I will frequently send crash reports to help get the cause of the crash fixed.
In both of those cases *I* decide if it happens, and I was informed of the data being uploaded.
But automatically reporting my GPS locations - HELL NO!!!
Yes, the Pre is a phone - as such it MUST, BY LAW be able to report its location to 911 (here in the US, natch). My phone (which is NOT a Pre) has been configured to turn GPS off for anything OTHER than E911. If I found out that it was NOT abiding by that selection - that it was sending position data to anyone other than E911 - then not only would I be terminating my cell contract, I would be filing suit against the makers of the phone AND the cell carrier.
Again, I can see why Palm would want apps installed and crash data - but WHAT DAMN BUSINESS is it of theirs to know position?!?!
Slashdot Mirror
OK, here's one for the physicists in the audience (and pardon the simplification of terms here, but...)
1) Being deeper in a gravity well slows time relative to being further out.
2) All things which have mass have gravity wells.
3) Photons have mass (NOTE TO THE CLUELESS: "mass" and "rest mass" are two different things - photons have no rest mass, but they most certainly have relativistic mass).
4) By 2 and 3 photons should have a (small) gravity well. More massive photons (higher energy and thus shorter wavelength) have deeper wells.
Thus, wouldn't 1 and 4 lead to higher energy photons "clocks running slower" (since they are deeper in a gravity well) and thus propagating as a lower speed as viewed by an observer outside their gravity well - and that effect would be negligible for all but the most massive photons.
(for the physicists: feel free to expand and clarify on the oversimplifications I've made here. This is, after all, targeting a Slashdot audience which has rather a wide spread of backgrounds).
Just one thing to keep in mind: the display, no matter what, won't be any larger than the subtended angle of the display apparatus as viewed by the eye. In other words, if you have a display covering 90 degrees of your field of view, then the apparatus generating that display will have to cover 90 degrees of your field of view.
Now, that apparatus may be transparent and not interfere with viewing the rest of the world in that 90 degrees, but this doesn't mean that some little bug-like object on a lamppost twenty feet away is going to be able to target your eye and draw an advertisement that subtends 90 degrees of your field of view, since the little bug-like object doesn't subtend that 90 degrees - it will be able to make an advertisement no bigger than the bug looks to you.
Really, this isn't much different than the head mounted display I was playing with years ago, which had a small mirror in front of the eye, and a display module that clipped to the side of your glasses. This just uses lasers rather than diodes.
"I am hopeful that any information I may need that was only ever hosted on some guy's Geocities site (probably in SiliconValley) has been archived."
This idea that anything on the Internet shall live forever is demonstrably false. If a web page contains content you want to have forever after, save it yourself, to media you control.
Sure, that embarrassing picture of you, the chocolate pudding, and the goat will live forever, but anything YOU want to survive will vanish faster than a top quark.
Several people have said "Geocities gave people their first exposure to web design."
Web Design? How about "Web cobble-together-with-used-duck-tape-and-old-bubblegum" (and yes, I meant to use "duck" rather than "duct").
Geoshitties encouraged almost every BAD idea for web site implementation there was.
So, I give a "NOT fond regards" (~73) to Geoshitties - sing it with me:
Na Na Na Na
Na NA NA NA
Hey Hey Hey
GoodBye!
How about some natural landmarks?
Old Faithful, Yellowstone National Park, WY
Craters of the Moon National Park, ID
Then there's a couple of just neat places:
Big Brutus, West Mineral, KS
Castle Rock, Quinter, KS
the Bonner Springs Renaissance Festival Park, Bonner Springs, KS
And one really obvious one:
The Playboy Mansion
"Are you pondering what I am pondering, Pinky?"
"I think so Brain, but how can I bunny-hop over the lava when I'm a mouse?"
"Or the Thorium in Coleman lantern mantels [sic]?"
First of all, the Thorium was in the mantles not for its radioactivity, but for its candoluminescence (it makes a lot of visible light when hot, but not a lot of infrared).
Second of all, Thorium is no longer used in gas lamp mantles for the very reason that it is radioactive. Indeed, the old Coleman factory building in downtown Wichita is a radioactive waste clean-up site.
I'm not sure a mouse needs to be "multi-touch", in the same way that I don't think a mouse should respond to voice commands (sorry, Cmdr. Scott....).
Multi-touch makes sense for touch screens or track pads, as it changes them from a "cave-man" interface where the only real choices you have is "grunt" (tap), "grunt-grunt" (double-tap), and "uuuuuuugh!" (drag), into an interface where you have a few more choices (multi-finger drag, pinch, etc.).
The mouse already underwent such a change, when multiple buttons were added. I don't know if trying to map things you do on a flat panel onto things you do to a mouse makes any more sense than trying to make a joystick "multi-touch".
What is wrong with different interfaces having different semantics? I don't expect to drive my car with a touchpad, use a mouse to control my stove, or do word-processing with a steering wheel.
OK, consider this assertion:
Web pages and web applications are different, so perhaps we need a new URL type?
Consider: the original purpose of HTTP was HyperTEXT Transport protocol: a means to have linked TEXT pages. Thus, such pages were not a Turing Complete language (indeed, they weren't any form of "active" language at all, just a markup presentation layer). As such, they were simple to evaluate from a security protocol standpoint.
Since then, the web has evolved into a collection of Web pages (text, graphics, but basically NOT "active") and Web Applications (things like Google Maps).
To be an "active" page pretty much requires a Turning Complete language, and it is impossible to fully say that a Turing Complete language is "safe" (at a minimum, you cannot guarantee halting, so you have a denial of service attack if nothing else).
What if we separate the idea of a "Web Page" and a "Web Application", and put certain rules on each (web pages should not require Turing Complete behavior to operate, Web Applications should be bounded in where the fetch code from)? When the user selects a Web Application, the browser can check if the application has been cleared to run by the user previously, and if not, ask them "You have selected to run a web application 'FutzorJooMachine' from 'evilbad.example.com' - are you sure?" Ideally, the web application should provide to the browser a list of sites and components it plans on using (and the browser should ENFORCE that only those items are used).
Now, if the only difference between a Web Page and a Web Application is the MIME type, then you are going to have a hard time letting the user know when he is about to step on a mine - so what if we create a new transport type, "WATP" (Web Application Transport Protocol), which is the same as HTTP in implementation but has a different default link type, and different permissions from the browser.
That way, things that are supposed to be Web Pages (Yes, 'You Cannot Delete Messages Without Javascript'-Slashdot I am looking at you) can be constrained to a safe set of behaviors (as in NO JAVASCRIPT OF ANY FORM, INCLUDING FLASH), and the web apps can be identified as such and allowed to do what they need to do AT THE USER'S DISCRETION.
"What do you mean the proprietary PyQt is not compatible with the LGPL'd Qt? I should think you can indeed use the proprietary PyQt license with the LPGL'd Qt; the LGPL license certainly allows it."
Perhaps you think that, but Riverbank thinks otherwise, and states so very clearly - I've asked them. You must use the same license for Qt as you do Qt, you cannot use the proprietary PyQt with the LGPL Qt, and that is straight from Riverbank. I am more inclined to trust the word of the people who on the code than the opinions of a large number of Slashbots who have not personally looked into the issue (that's not directed at you, Caseih, but at the myriad of other posters on the board).
Full disclosure:
At work, I have a PyQT commercial license. I've had to look into the licensing issues around Qt and PyQt. The following is based upon my reading of the various licences and issues. I am an engineer, not an IP lawyer, and even were I a lawyer, I am not your lawyer - so do your own research.
I am all for supporting companies like Riverbend who offer both GPL and proprietary licenses.
However, there is a complication that Nokia was trying to address here. Whatever license you are using for PyQT you must also be using for Qt, due to the way they are linked.
Now, with Riverbend, the only licenses they offer are GPL and proprietary. That means that if I want to release a proprietary application using PyQt, I must use the proprietary PyQt. However, that means that I now must use the proprietary license for Qt as well. But that now means I have to buy the developer licenses for my team from Nokia - again, not a big deal from an initial monetary outlay.
Now, for my application I cannot use the GPL license because parts of my application are licensed from other people who don't want to GPL their code - it sucks, and I'd rather not deal with it, but when you are in the RF communications business and you have to support CDMA, you HAVE to do business with Qualcomm, and they will NOT change their minds.
So when I ship my app as a Windows or GNU/Linux application, I cannot use the GPL. Now, just considering Qt, I can use the LGPL - the library is dynamically linked against my code, the user can replace the library, all is right with the world.
Except that I cannot use the LGPL for Qt and use PyQt, as PyQt does not support LGPL. So, in case you cannot draw the Venn diagram for yourself, I am left with using the proprietary license for both Qt and PyQt. Now, even though the licensing terms are pretty generous, I still have to track all the licensed code I ship - so you just added a bunch of cost to my accounting of program. This gets even worse when the program is freely available (remember, you can be free and not be Free).
I had contacted Riverbend when Nokia announced the LGPL'ing of Qt, and at that time they said they were considering it. Obviously, they decided they couldn't do it and remain viable as a business - and while that sucks for me, I can certainly understand their point of view. But without the ability to use the LGPL version of Qt from Python, the utility of Qt is greatly diminished. I can understand why Nokia did what they did. Yes, it would have been nice if Nokia could have worked out a way to fund Riverbend such that Riverbend could have LGPL'ed PyQt, but evidently that couldn't happen.
"nice to see how these days Slashdot as a whole rolls over on Free Software as soon as they are bribed with something shiny."
THESE days? As opposed to?
I remember the days of Rob "CmdrTaco" "Debian rulz" Malda running off to run Halflife-2 under Windows, rather than saying "Screw that - if you don't support Linux I ain't playin'".
The /. crowd always has taken teh shinee over Free Software, when the two were mutually exclusive.
Sorry, but the LAST HHGTTG book, "Mostly Harmless", wasn't all that funny, either - and that WAS written by Douglas himself.
Considering that it ended with the destruction of pretty much EVERYTHING, I don't see how the new book could even BE - let alone BE FUNNY, unless the do a complete reboot of the HHGTTG universe.
("...with younger, edgier characters!")
"I can do everything in your list just fine -- if you pick a web site that actually supports v6. "
That's rather my point: until common, popular web sites support IPv6, there is no reason for the average person to have it.
If a tech-savvy site like /. cannot support IPv6, then what hope is there for more ordinary sites?
And why doesn't /. support IPv6? According to previous articles on this, because their co-lo doesn't.
And that is the whole point of my checklist.
OK, here's a handy checklist to see if IPv6 is ready for prime time:
Use case: access a common web site (e.g. Slashdot) entirely by IPv6 packets: .org DNS server): CHECK .org DNS node via IPv6 packets (lookup slashdot.org address): ???
1) Look up host's IP via IPv6 packets:
1a) Access a root DNS node via IPv6 packets (look up
1b) Access
2) Access slashdot.org via IPv6 packets:
2a) Route IPv6 packets from my computer to "the Internet": FAIL
2b) Route IPv6 packets from "the Internet" to Co-Lo facility: ???
2c) Route IPv6 packets within the Co-Lo to Slashdot's servers: ???
When you (a presumably technically skilled user) can do that, then IPv6 is ready for the masses.
"For all practicality,. when someone says UFO, there talking about aliens."
There is a story about an Air Force officer, who is appointed to the position of Press Liaison (a position he most definitely does NOT want).
So he goes up in a 2 seater fighter jet, with his usual WSO in the back seat. Presently, he says to his WSO "From here on out, I don't want you to say ANYTHING, except for the answers to my questions, which are to be yes, or no. Understood?"
The bemused WSO agrees.
The pilot then says "Do you see, off to our 9 o'clock, a large, glowing object? YES OR NO!"
To which the WSO responds "Y... Yes?"
Pilot: "I am turning to intercept. Can you get a radar return off it?"
WSO: "No"
Pilot: "I am increasing speed to intercept. Speed now Mach 1.2. Are you able to get a radar fix on the object?"
WSO: "No."
Pilot: "Visually, do we appear to be gaining on the object?"
WSO: "No"
Pilot: "Terminating pursuit. Resuming sub-sonic flight and returning to base. Turning 180 degrees."
Pilot: "We have turned 180 degrees. The object appears to be off our tail. Can you confirm visual?"
WSO: "Yes"
Pilot: "Attempting to evade. Speed now Mach 1.5. Does the object appear to be falling behind?"
WSO: "No"
They later land at the base, and the cockpit voice recorder tapes, as transcribed above, somehow are leaked to the press.
The headlines the next day: "AIR FORCE JET CHASES UFO!" "AIR FORCE SEES ALIEN SHIP!" - etc.
Now, in his role as Press Liaison, the pilot faces a press conference, with the WSO in attendance.
Reporter #1: "Is it true you saw an alien craft?!"
Pilot: "No."
Reporter #2: "Is it true you saw a UFO?!"
Pilot: "No."
Reporter #3: "BULL! COVERUP! YOU AREN'T TELLING US THE TRUTH!"
Pilot: "Is that a question? Never mind - here's my Weapon Systems Operator, he was in the back seat of the aircraft. What did you see? What did we chase?"
WSO: "The sun."
Needless to say, the Pilot was relieved of his role as Press Liaison.
Facepalm.
You are right. I added a factor of ten I shouldn't have. I am embarrassed, I previewed but was looking for grammatical errors, not basic math.
I'll go stand in the corner now....
Your average LARGE RV - e.g. a 37 foot trailer with 4 slides - is wired for 50A @ 110VAC (here in the US) - that is 55kW. Many RV parks supply only 30A, not 50A - roughly 33kW.
50A is enough to heat your average RV, using only electric heat, in environments down to about 0C (with low wind), while running lights, TV, and the other accouterments of life.
My 4 bedroom house is wired for 200A@110VAC. Very rarely do I even come close to quarter of that.
Moreover, this is 40kW ALL THE TIME - that's 28800 kW*hr - go look at your (or for many Slashdotters, your mother's) electric bill, and see how many kW*hr you used in the hottest part of the summer.
Exactly what I would suggest. Disassemble the drive to what ever level you wish - take out the magnets, remove the circuit boards, whatever.
Take the drive platters + whatever bits of the drive are still attached to them, and place them in your self-cleaning oven.
Turn the oven on to a self-clean cycle.
Several hours later, when the oven has cooled off and unlocked itself, the patters will have hot-soaked long enough to have been well past the Curie point.
No more data.
AND you have a nice, clean oven (after a wipe down with a damp cloth).
This is exactly the same reason that so many police are scared of trunk-tracking scanners.
And that is why APCO-25 specifies, in great detail, how encryption is to be used, and supports several very strong encryptions schemes that Law Enforcement can use, none of which are supported by the trunking scanners, and even were they supported, without the keys, the scanners would STILL be unable to listen in.
I agree with you, AB3A - if the cops want to be private, then let them learn to practice basic OPSEC and INFOSEC.
73 de N0YKG
You say "Or should we lock them out and make them administer the network in person so we can stand behind and watch them?"
Given that you aren't administering your own network, I'd guess that you don't have the skills to do so. Would you know trouble if you saw it?
Would you know enough to see them setting up a remote service that they could get back into? Would you know enough to catch them copying sensitive files from where-ever they live to some staging directory, then later copying that directory off to a flash drive, or to some external server? Would you be able to catch them downloading a root kit and installing it?
In short, given that you don't have the experience to admin your own gear, do you REALLY think "standing behind them and watching them" is going to do anything but waste your time?
And IF you have the skills to admin your own machine, but want to outsource that due to some idea of "I have better things to do than this" - you have the time to stand behind them and watch them do the work, does that not imply you have the time to do the work?
Like others have said: If you are concerned, make them put up a bond.
The submitter didn't tell us what the intended route for the road trip was, so that makes it kind of hard to suggest what might be along the way.
For example, if you are going to go through Idaho, you should see EBR-1, the first breeder reactor and the first reactor to make electrical power.
If you are passing through Oklahoma City, you'd likely want to stop off at the Omniplex.
If you are passing through Socorro, NM, you'd need to see The Very Large Array.
How about you give us a bit of an idea of the route you are taking?
Kennedy Space Center is a decent museum, but for the money, let me plug The Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center in Hutchinson, KS - they have THE best collection of Russian gear outside of Moscow, as well as a great deal of US gear.
To see if the issue is related to the towers you are connecting to.
Which they get by the cellular infrastructure backhaul, rather than by GPS.
OK, I can see sending what applications are installed and what crashes have occurred given the user's explicit permission - I allow my Ubuntu boxes to participate in the "popularity contest" wherein what apps I install are (anonymously) logged, and I will frequently send crash reports to help get the cause of the crash fixed.
In both of those cases *I* decide if it happens, and I was informed of the data being uploaded.
But automatically reporting my GPS locations - HELL NO!!!
Yes, the Pre is a phone - as such it MUST, BY LAW be able to report its location to 911 (here in the US, natch). My phone (which is NOT a Pre) has been configured to turn GPS off for anything OTHER than E911. If I found out that it was NOT abiding by that selection - that it was sending position data to anyone other than E911 - then not only would I be terminating my cell contract, I would be filing suit against the makers of the phone AND the cell carrier.
Again, I can see why Palm would want apps installed and crash data - but WHAT DAMN BUSINESS is it of theirs to know position?!?!