Printing resolution seems to be 0.5mm to 2mm minimum detail, depending on material. Colors are cream, white, transparent (translucent yellowish, from the looks of it), and bright white. They all have various properties (one bends well, some are weaker, etc).
Maximum size varies from 20x25x33cm to 35x40x40cm, depending on the material as well. Prices range from $1.87 to $2.89 per cubic centimeter.
I'm not affiliated, just a beta user. I got my invite the same day(?) I signed up for one, so if you're interested, go sign up. I did look for anything saying that that information might be proprietary, but I couldn't find anything, other than the warning that those prices may be low for the beta. (And that the beta includes no shipping/handling fees, I believe.) Sorry if I shouldn't share!
For all but the biggest transactions, most people couldn't care less about what the certificate says. Really, how many people check the certificate on, say, PayPal, to see that it's actually owned by them?
I'm all for breaking the monopoly of current root CAs, but for the most part, that's already being undertaken over at OpenCA, which is indeed trying to get included into major browsers. (Last I heard, they had problems with IE, but Mozilla and perhaps Apple were willing to let them try if they had several audits, among other things.)
Perhaps a better solution would be for Firefox 3 to detect self-signed certificates (separate from expired, or wrong-domain certificates) and warn the user that there's no good way to be sure that the people running the website are who they say they are, but that if all they want to do is connect and have an encrypted communication, have a simple (but slightly scary) button to proceed, once per session. That of course wouldn't protect against man-in-the-middle attacks, but that's the reason the root CA infrastructure is in place. Getting something like OpenCA in more browsers is probably the best (only?) fix for that.
If you're using Ubuntu, the latest security updates should have fixed this already (for a few days, I believe). The Ubuntu security team has USN-540-1 as a notification. It looks like it's an issue in Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, Ubuntu 6.10, Ubuntu 7.04, and Ubuntu 7.10 (at least), and their respective Kubuntu/Edubuntu/Xubuntu releases.
All you really need to update looks to be libflac7 or libflac8, whichever exists on your system (8 is only for Gutsy, aka 7.10), though it's probably a good idea to update all the security updates anyway.
So far, there have been a bunch of comments on why this shouldn't have happened. Great, whatever. It is what it is.
So the question is, why does it matter? Day 1 or 366, it shouldn't matter, right? Unless they both didn't make it loop around and used functions heavily based on the date (not terribly likely), then what difference does it make? It's just December 31+1, so day-of-week, etc. should all remain correct.
It's not like NASA would just make a probably-multi-million-dollar-a-day wait because they felt like it. Obviously there's something up, so perhaps someone who knows could enlighten us?
I'm not sure 'bout that
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
From experience, it's a whole lot easier to have a standard interface to things (especially things like the control panel) than to have it rearranged for each user.
Trying to fix someone's computer with an adapted OS would be a real pain, and asking for help via email would be next to impossible, because your options could be in a different place.
Even today's OS adapatability can be unnerving. I get used to using something from the top N programs on the Start Menu (Sorry, no Linux on the work computer), but when it gets bumped off because Windows thinks I used something else more often, I'm confused for a few seconds, just enough to be annoyed.
So my guess is that this "new kind of OS" won't succeed because of support hassles and confusing the user. But it'd be darn cool if those problems could be fixed.
It's important to point out that the bill in question, H.R. 5319, would not ban minors from social networking sites, as the article implies. In fact, it only requires schools and libraries to take steps to make sure that commercial social networking sites are banned. (Yes, yes, it's still bad - I know of several kids who can only go online at school, and I will be writing to my representative if this appears to be going anywhere, even though/because I am a minor.)
If you're interested, schools and libraries must:
"[prohibit] access by minors without parental authorization to a commercial social networking website or chat room through which minors:
may easily access or be presented with obscene or indecent material;
may easily be subject to unlawful sexual advances, unlawful requests for sexual favors, or repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature from adults; or
may easily access other material that is harmful to minors"
Additionally, a "commercial social networking website" is:
"a commercially operated Internet website that:
allows users to create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves and are available to other users; and
offers a mechanism for communication with other users, such as a forum, chat room, email, or instant messenger."
I participate in an event called FIRST LEGO League. Last year our team won First Place Nationally (U.S.). We'll be going to Nationals this year (one team from each state competion will be) in April, and signup for next year is planned to start May 3rd.
One of our coaches is at FIRST's headquarters with several people from LEGO from Thursday to today, and (at least as of several hours ago), no talk of disbanding Mindstorms has gone on.
I'm sure that because FIRST has so many ties to LEGO, they would have been told ahead of time, so something seems amiss.
Just a few thoughts,
Coolhelperguy
P.S. Dean Kamen (the guy who made the Segway) is the founder of FIRST, to give some idea of size, and the fact that it's not a fly-by-night orginization.
IANAL either but, there should be some law of sorts in the UK (there is in the USoA, it seems like a good idea, so I guess the UK has it) that says that you can't be charged on new laws for offenses committed before the laws were passed (I think it's Ex Post Facto or something).
I picked back. A witty remark will often slow a bully quite well.
Too true, My favorite quote is still the following: Place: In the gym, sitting on the floor before gym actually starts
bully:So, Fred, I heard that[...]
Me:By the way, you're sitting on gum.
He was. Really was. Scared as hell of me afterwards too. (my name's not fred, just changed it)
Dear [Higher Being]! What about papercuts? This poor kid that only made a $1,000 profit must be sued into the ground by now with all those lawsuits! I propose this as an example of why we should enact strict laws to ensure that our price fixing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H safety guidelines for the better good of humanity are met!
Re:Like Most Other Hacking Competitions
on
Get Paid To Crack?
·
· Score: 0
only one IP address at a time
Well, maybe they changed it, but as of a few months ago, they would let you specify an IP or a range (or several of each) so you could use distributed and spoofed IPs as long as they knew beforehand (so much for spoofing)
Does frequent include searches using sourceid=mozilla-search?
I don't think it does. I'm not exactly sure the limit, but I'm sure that I've done 3 digits of searches in the last week from mozilla, so I'd assume I should have the counter but it would appear on google's page that I don't.
a small sticker or bullet on the back of the CD isn't obvious enough
Oh, I think a bullet through the CD would be obvious enough and would keep most of the people in the world from crippling their computer with unlicensed patches unless they really want to re-assemble the whole CD from it's 50 million shards.
And as I'm stuck here with a Windoze system (what, I don't have the old mac working as linux yet), I get a popup for new critical updates. Funny thing though... I'm using Windoze 98 (no RPC)... Hmm... wonder what other botched patches they've just released.
Yes, but when you consider that "all I'm doing" when I send spam (Wait, Wait! I don't! Hypothetical Situation!) is sending signals across the wire to my ISP, who then has to (knowingly?) forward it to your ISP which then has to accept the spam, and then it gets sent to you, who again has to accept the spam, consider there are many places it could have been blocked, and wasn't. Unfourtanetly, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Sidenote, I'm not sure, but I'm beginnning to wonder if the (US Only, Maybe Canada) regulation (FCC) requirement of "This device must accept any interference recieved, including interference that may cause undesired operation" (Part 15 (2) FCC Rules) would allow this of it's own right.
Slashdot Mirror
Most certainly.
Printing resolution seems to be 0.5mm to 2mm minimum detail, depending on material. Colors are cream, white, transparent (translucent yellowish, from the looks of it), and bright white. They all have various properties (one bends well, some are weaker, etc).
Maximum size varies from 20x25x33cm to 35x40x40cm, depending on the material as well. Prices range from $1.87 to $2.89 per cubic centimeter.
I'm not affiliated, just a beta user. I got my invite the same day(?) I signed up for one, so if you're interested, go sign up. I did look for anything saying that that information might be proprietary, but I couldn't find anything, other than the warning that those prices may be low for the beta. (And that the beta includes no shipping/handling fees, I believe.) Sorry if I shouldn't share!
For all but the biggest transactions, most people couldn't care less about what the certificate says. Really, how many people check the certificate on, say, PayPal, to see that it's actually owned by them?
I'm all for breaking the monopoly of current root CAs, but for the most part, that's already being undertaken over at OpenCA, which is indeed trying to get included into major browsers. (Last I heard, they had problems with IE, but Mozilla and perhaps Apple were willing to let them try if they had several audits, among other things.)
Perhaps a better solution would be for Firefox 3 to detect self-signed certificates (separate from expired, or wrong-domain certificates) and warn the user that there's no good way to be sure that the people running the website are who they say they are, but that if all they want to do is connect and have an encrypted communication, have a simple (but slightly scary) button to proceed, once per session. That of course wouldn't protect against man-in-the-middle attacks, but that's the reason the root CA infrastructure is in place. Getting something like OpenCA in more browsers is probably the best (only?) fix for that.
If you're using Ubuntu, the latest security updates should have fixed this already (for a few days, I believe). The Ubuntu security team has USN-540-1 as a notification. It looks like it's an issue in Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, Ubuntu 6.10, Ubuntu 7.04, and Ubuntu 7.10 (at least), and their respective Kubuntu/Edubuntu/Xubuntu releases.
All you really need to update looks to be libflac7 or libflac8, whichever exists on your system (8 is only for Gutsy, aka 7.10), though it's probably a good idea to update all the security updates anyway.
So far, there have been a bunch of comments on why this shouldn't have happened. Great, whatever. It is what it is.
So the question is, why does it matter? Day 1 or 366, it shouldn't matter, right? Unless they both didn't make it loop around and used functions heavily based on the date (not terribly likely), then what difference does it make? It's just December 31+1, so day-of-week, etc. should all remain correct.
It's not like NASA would just make a probably-multi-million-dollar-a-day wait because they felt like it. Obviously there's something up, so perhaps someone who knows could enlighten us?
From experience, it's a whole lot easier to have a standard interface to things (especially things like the control panel) than to have it rearranged for each user.
Trying to fix someone's computer with an adapted OS would be a real pain, and asking for help via email would be next to impossible, because your options could be in a different place.
Even today's OS adapatability can be unnerving. I get used to using something from the top N programs on the Start Menu (Sorry, no Linux on the work computer), but when it gets bumped off because Windows thinks I used something else more often, I'm confused for a few seconds, just enough to be annoyed.
So my guess is that this "new kind of OS" won't succeed because of support hassles and confusing the user. But it'd be darn cool if those problems could be fixed.
If you're interested, schools and libraries must:
Additionally, a "commercial social networking website" is:
Text of motion: Government's Motion to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment [PDF, 1.8M]
EFF's page on the case: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
I participate in an event called FIRST LEGO League. Last year our team won First Place Nationally (U.S.). We'll be going to Nationals this year (one team from each state competion will be) in April, and signup for next year is planned to start May 3rd.
One of our coaches is at FIRST's headquarters with several people from LEGO from Thursday to today, and (at least as of several hours ago), no talk of disbanding Mindstorms has gone on.
I'm sure that because FIRST has so many ties to LEGO, they would have been told ahead of time, so something seems amiss.
Just a few thoughts,
Coolhelperguy
P.S. Dean Kamen (the guy who made the Segway) is the founder of FIRST, to give some idea of size, and the fact that it's not a fly-by-night orginization.
IANAL either but, there should be some law of sorts in the UK (there is in the USoA, it seems like a good idea, so I guess the UK has it) that says that you can't be charged on new laws for offenses committed before the laws were passed (I think it's Ex Post Facto or something).
I picked back. A witty remark will often slow a bully quite well.
Too true, My favorite quote is still the following:
Place: In the gym, sitting on the floor before gym actually starts
bully:So, Fred, I heard that[...] Me:By the way, you're sitting on gum. He was. Really was. Scared as hell of me afterwards too. (my name's not fred, just changed it)
Anyway, I'm gonna go hang out in the backyard of my white Protestant family's backyard and talk about golf while barbecuing.
Wow, they must have a huge backyard to have a backyard of their backyard.
(yeah, I know, offtopic...sorry)
"Credit Card Siezed Concept PDA from citizen"
Dear [Higher Being]! What about papercuts? This poor kid that only made a $1,000 profit must be sued into the ground by now with all those lawsuits! I propose this as an example of why we should enact strict laws to ensure that our price fixing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H safety guidelines for the better good of humanity are met!
only one IP address at a time
Well, maybe they changed it, but as of a few months ago, they would let you specify an IP or a range (or several of each) so you could use distributed and spoofed IPs as long as they knew beforehand (so much for spoofing)
Does frequent include searches using sourceid=mozilla-search?
I don't think it does. I'm not exactly sure the limit, but I'm sure that I've done 3 digits of searches in the last week from mozilla, so I'd assume I should have the counter but it would appear on google's page that I don't.
I guess that means that my 40,000 (This x10) node beowulf cluster will still take more than 5 days to boot up. Darn.
"take up to 12 floppy disks to pay."
Thank god that DRM scheme is no longer in use!
a small sticker or bullet on the back of the CD isn't obvious enough
Oh, I think a bullet through the CD would be obvious enough and would keep most of the people in the world from crippling their computer with unlicensed patches unless they really want to re-assemble the whole CD from it's 50 million shards.
In Mother Russia, Dictionary shreds you!
And as I'm stuck here with a Windoze system (what, I don't have the old mac working as linux yet), I get a popup for new critical updates. Funny thing though... I'm using Windoze 98 (no RPC)... Hmm... wonder what other botched patches they've just released.
Yes, but when you consider that "all I'm doing" when I send spam (Wait, Wait! I don't! Hypothetical Situation!) is sending signals across the wire to my ISP, who then has to (knowingly?) forward it to your ISP which then has to accept the spam, and then it gets sent to you, who again has to accept the spam, consider there are many places it could have been blocked, and wasn't. Unfourtanetly, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Sidenote, I'm not sure, but I'm beginnning to wonder if the (US Only, Maybe Canada) regulation (FCC) requirement of "This device must accept any interference recieved, including interference that may cause undesired operation" (Part 15 (2) FCC Rules) would allow this of it's own right.