Moreover, running a full windows install within OS X, through some sort of emulation/virtualization is going to be fairly easy as compared to, say PPC versions of virtual pc and it will potentially allow you to sandbox windows and thereby keep it much more secure than the standard installation on commodity hardware. Furthermore, there are few reasons to dual-boot if you can simul-boot? Done right, that method could really make the Intel/OS X macs a major player (think swiss-army knife) -- I know there's been talk of a similar sort of thing w/ linux and windows via WINE but it really looks like the OS X side might come to fruition first, though this really is all conjecture on my part, so whatever.
Make it so someone picks one up, and is checked out and gone within a few minutes. Less time for them to be standing there thinking about the purchase, therefore more likely for them to make the buy on an impulse.
It really is the physical embodiment of the whole "one-click purchase" "idea" that Amazon patented and Apple has licensed, isn't it? Commercial genius, IMHO.
It is inherently assumed that one does the exchange correctly and it's simply a non-issue.
An in-band exchange of credentials is never a non-issue. Unless other precautions are taken -- such as signing by a trustworthy 3rd party, which itself takes some risk, depending on how paranoid/conspiracy theorist you are[1] -- an in-band exchange of credentials is a risky thing to do and not a non-issue. An overly strong sense of security is exactly the mindset that causes lapses in security.
[1]Who would have actually believed that the government of the US was, in fact, spying on US citizens before the last week's events? Only the most paranoid among us would have. Security is not something you can make assumptions about, nor is it something you can be sure is perfect. As such, unless something is explicitly covered, it's an issue. Out of band exchange of keys was not covered in the OP, nor was 3rd party signing. They're issues it's just whether you want to deal with them.
Nothing personal but it's pretty sad to see your claim modded up -- it shouldn't be hard to realize who did so (people without knowledge) and why (it made the puzzle of their worldview go "click!" and suddenly all the delusions made more sense to them).
That's a bit of a smarmy/holier than thou statement. Forgive me if that's not how you meant it, but you're not seeming to read this thread quite right...
I've not ignored any of your points. My posting has been completely as an explanation of the applicability of the man in the middle attack to the the scenario described by cryfreedomlove in the original post where the process was described as including an initial, in-band exchange of public keys. Sure, you modify cryfreedomlove's scenario just a bit and it gets a whole lot more robust. I said as much. You're not really that insightful if you make the same suggestion that I made: that public keys should be " handed over in person from the owner of the public key." In regards to your other suggestion, sure, in some cases signing by a third party is practical and in those cases it would also go a long way to alleviate the possibility of a man in the middle attack and that's a good additional point. That having been said, the OP did not include any such notion in their specification of the situation. Moreover, I would even argue that in practical use many people don't bother to get their keys signed by known/trusted authorities. They should, but they don't -- various factors influence this for various people, including, possibly, cost, time, trouble/hassle, proving your identity (or providing your identity), and the mighty complacency . Either way, not mentioning that doesn't make my points invalid nor does it validate your apparent sense of superiority.
Completely -- I was just pointing out that as per the premise in the original post in this thread, if you start out w/ the key exchange, you're open to the man in the middle attack (w/out anyone's private key being compromised), just as the other poster said.
The mods here don't know anything about pki to have modded this up so high. The NSA would also have to have each senders private keys to decrypt the messages. This is extremely difficult if proper security is used with each users private keys.
Except, it's right on:
Let's use a conversation between Andrew and Charles, aka A and C... Now, assume I'm some ill-willed person named Bob, aka B that wants to play a man in the middle attack on A and C. If I can convince A that I'm C and C that I'm A initially, before they exchange public keys as the OP stated, I'm home free. Why? It should be clear... I give my public key to both A and C and they both give me their public keys. I can, therefore, receive messages from both (and decrypt them using my private key) and send messages to both A and C, using their public keys. So, A sends me a message encoded with my public key, I decrypt it, store the contents and then re-encrypt it with C's public key and send it along to C, etc. A B C but both A and C think they're talking directly to each other.
Prior exchange, out of band, of the public keys would make the man in the middle attack harder to do.
So, I'm betting the real issue will be selling a cheaper or open source solution to people who are not in IT and are used to paying big money for anything "reputable"... I guess the strategy I would use would be to put a chunk of money into a "reputable" consultant who would then sell them on the OSS option. Remember, in business and in politics it's often about making them feel secure, regardless of whether or not they actually are. Somehow Microsoft and Norton branded products provide that sense of security to many outside of the IT field, so they'll continue to get the business unless you can provide them with that same sense of security at a cheaper price.
Google's initial hosting and resources came from Standford, not the free market.
Moreover, the internet and web-searches, etc. were not an very stable/established market when Google came to life. It would be harder, though not impossible, to do what they did now. Ten years from now, it'll likely be even more difficult.
You need to differentiate the drift speed of the particular electrons (this can be quite slow, esp. in AC) and the speed of propagation of energy, which if I recall is damn fast (near C, but not there...granted, 1/10 of C is still astoundingly fast, so my poor memory of freshman physics may not contradict you, though I think your guess is off)...the real advantage is that the switching speed is far beyond what we can do with current metal/electron based circuits (rtfa) . Additionally, this is big because using electrons generates more heat and is subject to induction/capacitence effects that light isn't. So those would be the main advantages, as I understand it... but I only play a physicist on/. so feel free to correct me, cruel world.
So are you calling the diagram/equation bullshit? If so, I guess you should go take a look at the cited source, "COURTESY: BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE HANDBOOK, 5TH EDITION" -- I guess they could have used the latest edition but it seems reputable enough to me -- and they go on to simplify it quite clearly, which seems reasonable enough as well. So, I fail to see the BS in the linked equation.
Python's so quirky with the whitespace (I don't mind the whitespace personally, but I think it's weird to teach it as syntax in a first language).
Quirky? How so? The using of whitespace/indentation for meaningful things really only encourages good programming and readable code. As long as you don't mix tabs and spaces (i.e. use a decent text editor that allows you to replace tabs with a group of spaces) the mandatory indenting is a fantastic thing.
Much in the same way that LISP's usage of parenthesis made it so much easier to write code that worked on the first attempt, Python's indentation rules are extremely helpful help your write good code quickly and keeps it readable (also a plus if you're a teacher who has to read what the students code). Moreover, by encouraging high readability standards, starting in python will be make you a cleaner coder in other languages because your standards will be raised...
again, all that's just my opinion...
Hmm... for me, the first time I clicked through the link it quickly refreshed and asked me for my email address or login, yaddda yadda, but when I clicked on the link again, after having closed the first window, I got to the story without any trouble. your mileage may vary...
-t
It seems to me the only clear looser in this deal is Microsoft -- why? because it's going to be relatively easy for people to develop for OS Xi and Linux (it has been already but now it'll be even more so) with less of the hassle of supporting Windows. For the moderate run, I believe OS X will strengthen the OSS community -- development for linux helps OS X and OS X development, in some cases, helps linux inasmuch as ports of non-cocoa apps are pretty easy. Sure Apple is a very closed source shop for much of what it does, but even they are giving some small amount back to the open source world and their OS encourages a lot more of the same -- all of that is more than Microsoft, to be sure -- and Microsoft said it themselves..."developers, developers, developers" get the developers to develop and you'll get the user base.
But hey, this is just my opinion...I can't wait to see what the future holds.
No, the fact that coal plants pump a lot of mercury into the air doesn't mean that another source of mercury -- this one brought into our homes, should be ignored. Are coal plants worrisome? yes. I'm a supporter of alternative energy sources for power, sure. I should note, your acceptance of this argument invalidates your earlier point that mercury was "natural" and commonly found in the environment, naturally -- no, instead, it's found in coal, amongst other things, usually deep within the earth, just as I said.
Now, you're right, it's mercury compounds that cause serious problems, but elemental mercury is still an issue (another peer-reviewed publication, this time a case report that illustrates my point: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1645633&dopt=Citation ) -- the sticky point with your argument is that mercury compounds end up being formed by mercury loose in the environment and it's also not all that hard for it to be vaporized. Additionally, I should note, that the mercury in the compact fluorescent bulbs ends up as a vapor, especially if they're broken.
My point in all of this, was and is, that compact fluorescent bulbs are not as perfect of a solution as it may seem at first blush. How it all shakes out in the end wasn't completely my point, in fact, as you can double check, I said that I expected CFB's come out the better -- but after a bit more reading, I revise that and say that they're only better inasmuch as they use less power and, while most power (in the US, at least) comes from coal that's an important difference. However, when we move away from coal, the issues with CFB's become more compelling.
First off, you rarely find elemental mercury in the environment that hasn't been put there by man. Yes, mercury is "natural" but that doesn't mean it's natural to find high concentrations of it free, in the environment. Lots of the "natural" mercury is locked up in other compounds, often deep below the surface.
Second off, I'd actually say that mercury in the landfill will give your CO2 a run for its money. check out some of the recent press coverage. Really quick, here's a link to a story in Discover: http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-05/features/our -preferred-poison/ and if you look a bit further, you'll find all sorts of other recent publications on the present dangers of mercury.
The other issue with compact fluorescents is polluction from manufacturing and disposal -- the bulbs themselves have an, albeit small, amount of mercury in them. As it stands now, we have a looming (and present) environmental mercury problem, globally, so disposal of compact fluorescents must be considered, especially as their numbers grow.
Second, the fluorescents must have a ballast to function -- ballasts found in compact fluorescent bulbs are of either the magnetic or the electronic varieties. The magnetic ones cause the noise and keep the 60Hz strobe effect and they're potentially environmentally unfriendly, both in their manufacture and in their components' disposal. The electronic ones use IC's to do same as the magnetic transformers. IC's and the components do have environmental costs associated with them as well, both in manufacturing and in disposal.
It takes a lot of energy to manufacture all of the components of a compact fluorescents In the end, I'd bet that compact fluorescent bulb, as compared with the simple(r) process for making an incandescent light bulb. Recycling IC's is something that's generally not done so they, and all their heavy metals and chemical components go straight into landfills (again, along with the mercury in the bulbs)...
So, the total energy cost is not as great as the hype would lead you to believe -- I'm betting it's still advantageous to use/make compact fluorescents, but not by much and I wouldn't be surprised if I were wrong in that conclusion.
I think sfjoe's in the right track -- it'll be a bit of a fit-test for you and your prospective employer. If you firmly believe in F/OSS and value the time that you (and others) give to such projects, then you're serving yourself well by including it in your resume and finding an employer who values it in you. When you enjoy your job and the environment that you work it, it'll be worth it.
That's cool, I'm more than fine being told I'm wrong, but how about data to back it up? When/if I get a chance I'll see what I can dig up that isn't Apple backed... but for the moment, I'm stealing time from work to do this and that's too much to dig up on the sly...So, heck, what are your tasks and what are your numbers, if you have, as you've said, measured carefully?
I'm not saying I buy alllllll the apple hype, but I don't believe that a 1.26 GHz Pentium III is on par with a 1.25 GHz G4 processor. The G4 will outperform a similarly clocked P3, by how much is open to debate and circumstance, but still and all, it's worth noting. Note, this doesn't mean one couldn't stuff a x86 processor into a small form factor that would blow the mac mini out of the water, but I'm saying that I don't believe a Pentium 3 of virtually identical clock speed is the one to match up.
Failing to perform to the terms of a contract is called a "breach," it is not "illegal."
Ahh, yes, semantics. I guess it's only to be expected that a conversation about law would fall to it. We can go that route, if you like. In legalese it is considered a "breach", correct. But simply put, "illegal" is used quite broadly in common parlance and, as I understand it, doesn't fit perfectly with any of the more specifically honed legal jargon.
Since you can't provide a legal cite
For someone so hung up on semantics, you can't seem to grasp first order logical and related concepts. Just because I didn't provide a cite, doesn't mean that I can't or couldn't. Frankly, your point didn't seem worth the effort, but now at the end of a long work day and with you insisting on your somewhat lacking point, I'll bite.
I'll offer you the opportunity to point to any authoritative lay source which refers to contract breach as "illegal."
So, you yourself accept that it's an issue of common usage. Therefore, I'd first point to common language definitions of the word "illegal": first, from webster's:
[adj] not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL,
[adj] prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules
So then one is forced admit that it hinges on just what "law" is. Wikipedia states:
Law is the formal codification of customs which have achieved such acceptance as become the enforced norm. The process of acceptance is accelerated by the existence of legislative bodies which seek to impose laws.
Law involves the legislation and regulation of statutes; as well as the resolution of disputes. In the civil law system codification is also an attempt to structure the law according to fundamental ethical principles to create a sense of order and simplicity that all members of society can comprehend,
Going further, with the understanding the the legal system in the United States is based upon the British Common Law system, we look to the area of law that is Civil Law, specifically, the contract law, which owes its existence to concept known as the Law of Obligations :
The Law of Obligations seeks to organize and regulate the voluntary and semi-voluntary legal relations available between moral and natural persons under as (1) obligations under contracts, both innominate and nominate (for example: sales, gift, lease, carriage, mandate, association, deposit, loan, employment, insurance, gaming and arbitration), (2) in unjust enrichment, (3) management of the property of another, (4) the reception of the thing not due and (5) the various forms of extra-contractual responsibility between persons known as delicts and quasi-delicts.
Going further, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University has much to say about contract law but specifically:
Contracts are promises that the law will enforce.
Therefore, it seems clear that inasmuch as a contract is a promise enforceable by law, and that contracts are regulated by a specific area of law, and that failing to fulfill the duties required by a legal contract have penalties enforceable by law, breaking a contract is going against the law, inasmuch as it's going against the specific, accepted rules of contracts, as understood through contract law. This is similar to other things that are held to be contrary to law (be it civil or criminal law such as murder) inasmuch as the law has systematic methods for the prescription of remedies for
Certainly not violating an NDA - that's a breach of contract. Nothing illegal about that, although suit can be brought.
I'm not really trying to flame you, but really, it's hard to know where to start with that. First, right, an NDA is a contract, a legally binding contract (if it's written correctly, of course). Breaking it is illegal. Contracts made by individuals of sound mind, not under duress or under fraudulent pretenses have legal backing, with certain, legal, stipulations. If a suit can be brought, there's a matter of law. In many cases it's civil law rather than criminal law, but you didn't say that.
When you apply to grad school, they don't know your profs from Adam or your courses from PSYC101. They are going to look at your GPA and your GMAT scores. Period. Yeah college is a place to learn but it would be hopelessly myopic and naive to think marks don't matter.
GMAT, huh? Spoken like a true business school student if I've ever heard one. Most *grad schools* want GRE scores, not GMAT scores, slick. Anyways, if you're in a respectable field and if you're coming from a decent undergrad program, there's a damn good chance that the grad schools know your professors or at least one name from your undergrad carreer. Moreover, you bet they look at your course choices...at least in the sciences they do...again, if you're applying to one of the quality programs. It's not that hard to pick the slackers from the people who really tried to challenge themselves...Moreover, your letters of recommendation do a lot to offer insight beyond the transcript and those will make or break many grad apps, regardless of grades or test scores.
Your statements are more in line with a professional degree, such as law, business or the like...but I don't call those programs grad school. They're a completely different deal with a completely different set of priorities and values.
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, running a full windows install within OS X, through some sort of emulation/virtualization is going to be fairly easy as compared to, say PPC versions of virtual pc and it will potentially allow you to sandbox windows and thereby keep it much more secure than the standard installation on commodity hardware. Furthermore, there are few reasons to dual-boot if you can simul-boot? Done right, that method could really make the Intel/OS X macs a major player (think swiss-army knife) -- I know there's been talk of a similar sort of thing w/ linux and windows via WINE but it really looks like the OS X side might come to fruition first, though this really is all conjecture on my part, so whatever.
It really is the physical embodiment of the whole "one-click purchase" "idea" that Amazon patented and Apple has licensed, isn't it? Commercial genius, IMHO.
An in-band exchange of credentials is never a non-issue. Unless other precautions are taken -- such as signing by a trustworthy 3rd party, which itself takes some risk, depending on how paranoid/conspiracy theorist you are[1] -- an in-band exchange of credentials is a risky thing to do and not a non-issue. An overly strong sense of security is exactly the mindset that causes lapses in security.
[1]Who would have actually believed that the government of the US was, in fact, spying on US citizens before the last week's events? Only the most paranoid among us would have. Security is not something you can make assumptions about, nor is it something you can be sure is perfect. As such, unless something is explicitly covered, it's an issue. Out of band exchange of keys was not covered in the OP, nor was 3rd party signing. They're issues it's just whether you want to deal with them.
That's a bit of a smarmy/holier than thou statement. Forgive me if that's not how you meant it, but you're not seeming to read this thread quite right...
I've not ignored any of your points. My posting has been completely as an explanation of the applicability of the man in the middle attack to the the scenario described by cryfreedomlove in the original post where the process was described as including an initial, in-band exchange of public keys. Sure, you modify cryfreedomlove's scenario just a bit and it gets a whole lot more robust. I said as much. You're not really that insightful if you make the same suggestion that I made: that public keys should be " handed over in person from the owner of the public key." In regards to your other suggestion, sure, in some cases signing by a third party is practical and in those cases it would also go a long way to alleviate the possibility of a man in the middle attack and that's a good additional point. That having been said, the OP did not include any such notion in their specification of the situation. Moreover, I would even argue that in practical use many people don't bother to get their keys signed by known/trusted authorities. They should, but they don't -- various factors influence this for various people, including, possibly, cost, time, trouble/hassle, proving your identity (or providing your identity), and the mighty complacency . Either way, not mentioning that doesn't make my points invalid nor does it validate your apparent sense of superiority.
Completely -- I was just pointing out that as per the premise in the original post in this thread, if you start out w/ the key exchange, you're open to the man in the middle attack (w/out anyone's private key being compromised), just as the other poster said.
Except, it's right on:
Let's use a conversation between Andrew and Charles, aka A and C... Now, assume I'm some ill-willed person named Bob, aka B that wants to play a man in the middle attack on A and C. If I can convince A that I'm C and C that I'm A initially, before they exchange public keys as the OP stated, I'm home free. Why? It should be clear... I give my public key to both A and C and they both give me their public keys. I can, therefore, receive messages from both (and decrypt them using my private key) and send messages to both A and C, using their public keys. So, A sends me a message encoded with my public key, I decrypt it, store the contents and then re-encrypt it with C's public key and send it along to C, etc. A B C but both A and C think they're talking directly to each other.
Prior exchange, out of band, of the public keys would make the man in the middle attack harder to do.
So, I'm betting the real issue will be selling a cheaper or open source solution to people who are not in IT and are used to paying big money for anything "reputable"... I guess the strategy I would use would be to put a chunk of money into a "reputable" consultant who would then sell them on the OSS option. Remember, in business and in politics it's often about making them feel secure, regardless of whether or not they actually are. Somehow Microsoft and Norton branded products provide that sense of security to many outside of the IT field, so they'll continue to get the business unless you can provide them with that same sense of security at a cheaper price.
Moreover, the internet and web-searches, etc. were not an very stable/established market when Google came to life. It would be harder, though not impossible, to do what they did now. Ten years from now, it'll likely be even more difficult.
You need to differentiate the drift speed of the particular electrons (this can be quite slow, esp. in AC) and the speed of propagation of energy, which if I recall is damn fast (near C, but not there...granted, 1/10 of C is still astoundingly fast, so my poor memory of freshman physics may not contradict you, though I think your guess is off)...the real advantage is that the switching speed is far beyond what we can do with current metal/electron based circuits (rtfa) . Additionally, this is big because using electrons generates more heat and is subject to induction/capacitence effects that light isn't. So those would be the main advantages, as I understand it... but I only play a physicist on /. so feel free to correct me, cruel world.
So are you calling the diagram/equation bullshit? If so, I guess you should go take a look at the cited source, "COURTESY: BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE HANDBOOK, 5TH EDITION" -- I guess they could have used the latest edition but it seems reputable enough to me -- and they go on to simplify it quite clearly, which seems reasonable enough as well. So, I fail to see the BS in the linked equation.
These guys set the bar for uptime and connectivity... I've been continually impressed. Bravo!
Quirky? How so? The using of whitespace/indentation for meaningful things really only encourages good programming and readable code. As long as you don't mix tabs and spaces (i.e. use a decent text editor that allows you to replace tabs with a group of spaces) the mandatory indenting is a fantastic thing.
Much in the same way that LISP's usage of parenthesis made it so much easier to write code that worked on the first attempt, Python's indentation rules are extremely helpful help your write good code quickly and keeps it readable (also a plus if you're a teacher who has to read what the students code). Moreover, by encouraging high readability standards, starting in python will be make you a cleaner coder in other languages because your standards will be raised... again, all that's just my opinion...
Now /. isn't even work safe for me! D'Oh!
Hmm... for me, the first time I clicked through the link it quickly refreshed and asked me for my email address or login, yaddda yadda, but when I clicked on the link again, after having closed the first window, I got to the story without any trouble. your mileage may vary... -t
It seems to me the only clear looser in this deal is Microsoft -- why? because it's going to be relatively easy for people to develop for OS Xi and Linux (it has been already but now it'll be even more so) with less of the hassle of supporting Windows. For the moderate run, I believe OS X will strengthen the OSS community -- development for linux helps OS X and OS X development, in some cases, helps linux inasmuch as ports of non-cocoa apps are pretty easy. Sure Apple is a very closed source shop for much of what it does, but even they are giving some small amount back to the open source world and their OS encourages a lot more of the same -- all of that is more than Microsoft, to be sure -- and Microsoft said it themselves..."developers, developers, developers" get the developers to develop and you'll get the user base. But hey, this is just my opinion...I can't wait to see what the future holds.
well, if the previous poster dutifully backs their data up, as they should...nothing happens. -inco
Now, if you don't like the discover article that I dug up quickly, how about a peer-reviewed journal article? Here's an abstract of one (there are more -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8354179&dopt=Citation
Now, you're right, it's mercury compounds that cause serious problems, but elemental mercury is still an issue (another peer-reviewed publication, this time a case report that illustrates my point: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1645633&dopt=Citation ) -- the sticky point with your argument is that mercury compounds end up being formed by mercury loose in the environment and it's also not all that hard for it to be vaporized. Additionally, I should note, that the mercury in the compact fluorescent bulbs ends up as a vapor, especially if they're broken.
My point in all of this, was and is, that compact fluorescent bulbs are not as perfect of a solution as it may seem at first blush. How it all shakes out in the end wasn't completely my point, in fact, as you can double check, I said that I expected CFB's come out the better -- but after a bit more reading, I revise that and say that they're only better inasmuch as they use less power and, while most power (in the US, at least) comes from coal that's an important difference. However, when we move away from coal, the issues with CFB's become more compelling.
First off, you rarely find elemental mercury in the environment that hasn't been put there by man. Yes, mercury is "natural" but that doesn't mean it's natural to find high concentrations of it free, in the environment. Lots of the "natural" mercury is locked up in other compounds, often deep below the surface.
Second off, I'd actually say that mercury in the landfill will give your CO2 a run for its money. check out some of the recent press coverage. Really quick, here's a link to a story in Discover: http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-05/features/our -preferred-poison/ and if you look a bit further, you'll find all sorts of other recent publications on the present dangers of mercury.
Second, the fluorescents must have a ballast to function -- ballasts found in compact fluorescent bulbs are of either the magnetic or the electronic varieties. The magnetic ones cause the noise and keep the 60Hz strobe effect and they're potentially environmentally unfriendly, both in their manufacture and in their components' disposal. The electronic ones use IC's to do same as the magnetic transformers. IC's and the components do have environmental costs associated with them as well, both in manufacturing and in disposal.
It takes a lot of energy to manufacture all of the components of a compact fluorescents In the end, I'd bet that compact fluorescent bulb, as compared with the simple(r) process for making an incandescent light bulb. Recycling IC's is something that's generally not done so they, and all their heavy metals and chemical components go straight into landfills (again, along with the mercury in the bulbs)...
So, the total energy cost is not as great as the hype would lead you to believe -- I'm betting it's still advantageous to use/make compact fluorescents, but not by much and I wouldn't be surprised if I were wrong in that conclusion.
I think sfjoe's in the right track -- it'll be a bit of a fit-test for you and your prospective employer. If you firmly believe in F/OSS and value the time that you (and others) give to such projects, then you're serving yourself well by including it in your resume and finding an employer who values it in you. When you enjoy your job and the environment that you work it, it'll be worth it.
That's cool, I'm more than fine being told I'm wrong, but how about data to back it up? When/if I get a chance I'll see what I can dig up that isn't Apple backed... but for the moment, I'm stealing time from work to do this and that's too much to dig up on the sly...So, heck, what are your tasks and what are your numbers, if you have, as you've said, measured carefully?
I'm not saying I buy alllllll the apple hype, but I don't believe that a 1.26 GHz Pentium III is on par with a 1.25 GHz G4 processor. The G4 will outperform a similarly clocked P3, by how much is open to debate and circumstance, but still and all, it's worth noting. Note, this doesn't mean one couldn't stuff a x86 processor into a small form factor that would blow the mac mini out of the water, but I'm saying that I don't believe a Pentium 3 of virtually identical clock speed is the one to match up.
Ahh, yes, semantics. I guess it's only to be expected that a conversation about law would fall to it. We can go that route, if you like. In legalese it is considered a "breach", correct. But simply put, "illegal" is used quite broadly in common parlance and, as I understand it, doesn't fit perfectly with any of the more specifically honed legal jargon.
Since you can't provide a legal cite
For someone so hung up on semantics, you can't seem to grasp first order logical and related concepts. Just because I didn't provide a cite, doesn't mean that I can't or couldn't. Frankly, your point didn't seem worth the effort, but now at the end of a long work day and with you insisting on your somewhat lacking point, I'll bite.
I'll offer you the opportunity to point to any authoritative lay source which refers to contract breach as "illegal."
So, you yourself accept that it's an issue of common usage. Therefore, I'd first point to common language definitions of the word "illegal": first, from webster's:
and then from:hyperdictionary:
So then one is forced admit that it hinges on just what "law" is. Wikipedia states:
Going further, with the understanding the the legal system in the United States is based upon the British Common Law system, we look to the area of law that is Civil Law, specifically, the contract law, which owes its existence to concept known as the Law of Obligations :
Going further, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University has much to say about contract law but specifically:
Therefore, it seems clear that inasmuch as a contract is a promise enforceable by law, and that contracts are regulated by a specific area of law, and that failing to fulfill the duties required by a legal contract have penalties enforceable by law, breaking a contract is going against the law, inasmuch as it's going against the specific, accepted rules of contracts, as understood through contract law. This is similar to other things that are held to be contrary to law (be it civil or criminal law such as murder) inasmuch as the law has systematic methods for the prescription of remedies for
I'm not really trying to flame you, but really, it's hard to know where to start with that. First, right, an NDA is a contract, a legally binding contract (if it's written correctly, of course). Breaking it is illegal. Contracts made by individuals of sound mind, not under duress or under fraudulent pretenses have legal backing, with certain, legal, stipulations. If a suit can be brought, there's a matter of law. In many cases it's civil law rather than criminal law, but you didn't say that.
GMAT, huh? Spoken like a true business school student if I've ever heard one. Most *grad schools* want GRE scores, not GMAT scores, slick. Anyways, if you're in a respectable field and if you're coming from a decent undergrad program, there's a damn good chance that the grad schools know your professors or at least one name from your undergrad carreer. Moreover, you bet they look at your course choices...at least in the sciences they do...again, if you're applying to one of the quality programs. It's not that hard to pick the slackers from the people who really tried to challenge themselves...Moreover, your letters of recommendation do a lot to offer insight beyond the transcript and those will make or break many grad apps, regardless of grades or test scores.
Your statements are more in line with a professional degree, such as law, business or the like...but I don't call those programs grad school. They're a completely different deal with a completely different set of priorities and values.