The Tibetans are astonishingly rigorous. If they decide to do this in a serious way, and they have the information they need, they will do a good job. There's a tendency to assume that they won't know what they are doing because their focus is on spiritual study, but nothing could be farther from the truth. His Holiness is actually an inveterate hacker who's notorious for taking things apart to see how they work (perhaps less so now than when he was younger).
It's not a question of purists. There aren't that many people in the world who read Tibetan. So you'd more likely do harm than good this way. Furthermore, Tibetan Unicode support is very good, so there's no need to redesign the type system. For instance, let's see what happens here:
à½-à½à¾à½à¼à½à½à½¦à¼à½-à½'à½à¼à½£à½à½à½¦à¼
Oh, the humanity. Apparently slashdot is not unicode-safe.
It's a really nice, free font. For Tibetans who prefer a more traditional-looking font, I would suggest that the Tibetan government should contact Xenotype. They have a fantastic dbu-med and dbu-chen font that's very traditional looking.
The big question is, does the Linux opentype implementation actually support the fonts. If not, it's just a matter of fixing that, which, while nontrivial, is certainly something that a good programmer could do.
Remote Desktop uses TLS and X.509? Could have fooled me. It just asks me for a password; as far as I can tell it goes over the wire in the clear. Maybe if you set it up in a special administrative mode you get TLS. Even so, as long as the machine being controlled is only checking the password, and not the cert, that's not good enough. But yeah, I'm certainly not claiming ssh with a password is in any way secure. It's not - you must use RSA keys, whether it's in the form of X.509 certs or ssh keys.
So it seems like you're saying that what Google did is better than what the guy from Sun thinks they should have done. Because it's *always* better to get a compile-time error than a run-time error.
Um, quoting extensively from Atlas Shrugged seems like another example of copyright infringement. I guess the law only applies to people you don't like?
So. Amazon. Lesbian women warriors. Amazon.com. A company named *after* lesbian women warriors. Amazon.com is anti-GLBT. Riiiiight.
Come one, folks. Slashdot readers are supposed to be geeks. Can't you tell a systematic gaming of an automated system when you see one?
By all reports, there have been a few cases of this happening since February (testing), and then a sudden spike in the week leading up to Easter. Which is when everybody who's competent is out of town.
So if you really want to know who's behind this, it's whoever's been shorting Amazon. Expect them to make a killing on Monday when the stock market opens.
How do you know? Is it because this is what you want to believe?
The reason I ask is that you just made a bunch of extremely dismissive assertions, and provided no data with which to back them up. This is a serious matter - on the one hand, people are getting dissatisfactory service, and we'd like that fixed; on the other hand, it really does cost money to provide internet connectivity, and I for one really have no idea how close to the bone my ISP is on expenses versus income.
So if you have the data to back up your assertions, I'm very interested to see it. And if you don't, isn't it intellectually dishonest for you to be making them?
Um. You realize, of course, that remote desktop is a lot less secure than ssh, right?
It doesn't matter if people are trying to pick the lock on your door. What matters is whether they can pick the lock. Use RSA-based authentication, and no amount of brute force is going to improve the odds of their breaking in to the point where it's worth bothering.
Remote desktop, on the other hand, is completely brute-forceable. If you're not seeing brute force attacks, it's because nobody's bothering, not because you're not vulnerable.
Do you have Fedex in the UK? I assume so. The cheapest rate Fedex charges is a good indicator for how expensive paper mail could possibly get if everybody opted out of junk mail. How much mail do you send in a year? Would you seriously mind spending the extra money, if you knew that it was saving swaths of forest all over the world? Seems like a pretty cheap investment in the future, to me.
Also, chances are that if paper mail got that expensive, a lot of things people use it for now would go out of fashion, and be replaced with electronic mechanisms. Even more paper saved, even less dioxin in the rivers downstream from paper mills.
Bear in mind that democracy means rule of the people. It doesn't mean "one person, one vote." That's a specific kind of democracy.
The way in which democracy has ever been applied is that the people do eventually get their way. This has been true throughout the ages - a king who completely lost the peoples' confidence could not be sure of continuing to rule. See for instance Richard III's fate, or the fate of Charles I. Of course, the will of the people tends always to be in a struggle with other great powers, but it would be wrong to suggest that it has no place at the table.
If you read the article I just linked to, from the NYU School of Journalism, you'll see that they have a pretty good working theory for why this is so. What I like about the article is what it says about the future, though - it's quite hopeful. Whether or not they are right, only time will tell, but I've seen a lot of evidence to that effect.
So despite what you say here, I think it's very important to try to preserve the freedom of the Internet, and that it is in fact a real force for genuine democracy.
Certainly it would be nice if Theora support were more widespread. However, with patents there are no guarantees - just because the author didn't patent it doesn't mean you won't get sued.
Encoding yourself is dangerous. What if you forget the key?
Seriously, H.264 may not be ideal for personal use, but it rocks if you're actually doing video production for online distribution, and there are USB dongles you can get that will encode faster than realtime without using up all your CPU.
There was plenty of VC money back when software patents were not legal, so this is a false choice. Your risks and rewards are *different* without software patents than with, but there are still risks and rewards.
Presumably the idea is that if there's warning of the raid, whatever records exist on the machines could be erased. So you hav to go in, cut the hardline, and take all the machines, or else your data will be gone.
Although given that there was another raid on March 12, it's hard to imagine that someone who intended to erase records would not already have done so.
I don't buy this argument. The problem here is not that the FBI got involved with a fraud investigation - it makes sense that the FBI would get involved in a fraud investigation where the disputed amount is in the millions of dollars, and the crime was committed across state lines, but would not get involved with a case where the amount of the fraud was small and the fraud was committed within the confines of a single city.
What is wrong about this case is that the FBI didn't recognize the colo provider as a common carrier and thus did not discriminate between the colo provider's customers. There's nothing wrong with the FBI investigating a crime, but there is something wrong with them doing it incompetently.
Actually, plenty of Libertarians are into anarchy. Of course, anarchy can mean a lot of things, from bomb-throwing radicals who just want to destroy the rule of law to people who believe that ultimately what allows societies to work is that most people behave ethically, and that consequently there is no need for some single institution to have a monopoly on the rule of law. A lot of libertarians subscribe to this latter kind of anarchism. I'm sympathetic, personally, but don't think it's practical.
They'll spend all night banging him if he's a good lay and they enjoy being with him, or if they're insecure and appreciate his attention.
People make decisions for all kinds of stupid reasons. You got an expensive car because you thought it'd get you banged all night, after all. How'd that work out for you?
Seriously, just live your life. Do something meaningful with it - something that you find satisfying. If you find that you have a tight smile when you try to smile back at a women who's smiling at you, figure out why, and do something about it. If you have trouble conversing, practice. Don't expect to get lucky with your practice partners - they're going to be Just Friends. Deal with it.
It's true that there are women who will never look twice at you unless you have a fast car. That's okay. There are also women who will never look twice at you if you aren't doing anything meaningful with your life. They're a lot more fun to spend your life with.
What's wrong with picking up tampons? You want blood all over the couch? Honestly, whenever I've picked up tampons for my sweetie, she's amazed at what a nice guy she landed. So I jump at the opportunity - I don't get that kind of appreciation when I go out to the store to pick up a carton of milk!
If it's really so stale that your sweetie doesn't appreciate it that way, maybe you need to figure out what you're doing wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The Tibetans are astonishingly rigorous. If they decide to do this in a serious way, and they have the information they need, they will do a good job. There's a tendency to assume that they won't know what they are doing because their focus is on spiritual study, but nothing could be farther from the truth. His Holiness is actually an inveterate hacker who's notorious for taking things apart to see how they work (perhaps less so now than when he was younger).
It's not a question of purists. There aren't that many people in the world who read Tibetan. So you'd more likely do harm than good this way. Furthermore, Tibetan Unicode support is very good, so there's no need to redesign the type system. For instance, let's see what happens here:
à½-à½à¾à½à¼à½à½à½¦à¼à½-à½'à½à¼à½£à½à½à½¦à¼
Oh, the humanity. Apparently slashdot is not unicode-safe.
It's a really nice, free font. For Tibetans who prefer a more traditional-looking font, I would suggest that the Tibetan government should contact Xenotype. They have a fantastic dbu-med and dbu-chen font that's very traditional looking.
The big question is, does the Linux opentype implementation actually support the fonts. If not, it's just a matter of fixing that, which, while nontrivial, is certainly something that a good programmer could do.
I generally use 2048. 1024 may be prohibitively expensive to brute force now, but why take chances?
Remote Desktop uses TLS and X.509? Could have fooled me. It just asks me for a password; as far as I can tell it goes over the wire in the clear. Maybe if you set it up in a special administrative mode you get TLS. Even so, as long as the machine being controlled is only checking the password, and not the cert, that's not good enough. But yeah, I'm certainly not claiming ssh with a password is in any way secure. It's not - you must use RSA keys, whether it's in the form of X.509 certs or ssh keys.
So it seems like you're saying that what Google did is better than what the guy from Sun thinks they should have done. Because it's *always* better to get a compile-time error than a run-time error.
Um, quoting extensively from Atlas Shrugged seems like another example of copyright infringement. I guess the law only applies to people you don't like?
So. Amazon. Lesbian women warriors. Amazon.com. A company named *after* lesbian women warriors. Amazon.com is anti-GLBT. Riiiiight.
Come one, folks. Slashdot readers are supposed to be geeks. Can't you tell a systematic gaming of an automated system when you see one?
By all reports, there have been a few cases of this happening since February (testing), and then a sudden spike in the week leading up to Easter. Which is when everybody who's competent is out of town.
So if you really want to know who's behind this, it's whoever's been shorting Amazon. Expect them to make a killing on Monday when the stock market opens.
I take it you never read the terms of service...
How do you know? Is it because this is what you want to believe?
The reason I ask is that you just made a bunch of extremely dismissive assertions, and provided no data with which to back them up. This is a serious matter - on the one hand, people are getting dissatisfactory service, and we'd like that fixed; on the other hand, it really does cost money to provide internet connectivity, and I for one really have no idea how close to the bone my ISP is on expenses versus income.
So if you have the data to back up your assertions, I'm very interested to see it. And if you don't, isn't it intellectually dishonest for you to be making them?
Um. You realize, of course, that remote desktop is a lot less secure than ssh, right?
It doesn't matter if people are trying to pick the lock on your door. What matters is whether they can pick the lock. Use RSA-based authentication, and no amount of brute force is going to improve the odds of their breaking in to the point where it's worth bothering.
Remote desktop, on the other hand, is completely brute-forceable. If you're not seeing brute force attacks, it's because nobody's bothering, not because you're not vulnerable.
Do you have Fedex in the UK? I assume so. The cheapest rate Fedex charges is a good indicator for how expensive paper mail could possibly get if everybody opted out of junk mail. How much mail do you send in a year? Would you seriously mind spending the extra money, if you knew that it was saving swaths of forest all over the world? Seems like a pretty cheap investment in the future, to me.
Also, chances are that if paper mail got that expensive, a lot of things people use it for now would go out of fashion, and be replaced with electronic mechanisms. Even more paper saved, even less dioxin in the rivers downstream from paper mills.
Bear in mind that democracy means rule of the people. It doesn't mean "one person, one vote." That's a specific kind of democracy.
The way in which democracy has ever been applied is that the people do eventually get their way. This has been true throughout the ages - a king who completely lost the peoples' confidence could not be sure of continuing to rule. See for instance Richard III's fate, or the fate of Charles I. Of course, the will of the people tends always to be in a struggle with other great powers, but it would be wrong to suggest that it has no place at the table.
I think you're ignoring the fact that during the period to which you refer, most people were getting their news from propaganda outlets, not from free outlets. E.g., Fox News, etc. I mention Fox because they're the most blatant, but pretty much all of the news networks can be accused of being propagandists, even if they're not doing it deliberately.
If you read the article I just linked to, from the NYU School of Journalism, you'll see that they have a pretty good working theory for why this is so. What I like about the article is what it says about the future, though - it's quite hopeful. Whether or not they are right, only time will tell, but I've seen a lot of evidence to that effect.
So despite what you say here, I think it's very important to try to preserve the freedom of the Internet, and that it is in fact a real force for genuine democracy.
Er, it seems that you are contrasting two things that are essentially the same.
Certainly it would be nice if Theora support were more widespread. However, with patents there are no guarantees - just because the author didn't patent it doesn't mean you won't get sued.
Encoding yourself is dangerous. What if you forget the key?
Seriously, H.264 may not be ideal for personal use, but it rocks if you're actually doing video production for online distribution, and there are USB dongles you can get that will encode faster than realtime without using up all your CPU.
There was plenty of VC money back when software patents were not legal, so this is a false choice. Your risks and rewards are *different* without software patents than with, but there are still risks and rewards.
If the CME wipes out all life on earth, who *cares* about the electronics?
Presumably the idea is that if there's warning of the raid, whatever records exist on the machines could be erased. So you hav to go in, cut the hardline, and take all the machines, or else your data will be gone.
Although given that there was another raid on March 12, it's hard to imagine that someone who intended to erase records would not already have done so.
I don't buy this argument. The problem here is not that the FBI got involved with a fraud investigation - it makes sense that the FBI would get involved in a fraud investigation where the disputed amount is in the millions of dollars, and the crime was committed across state lines, but would not get involved with a case where the amount of the fraud was small and the fraud was committed within the confines of a single city.
What is wrong about this case is that the FBI didn't recognize the colo provider as a common carrier and thus did not discriminate between the colo provider's customers. There's nothing wrong with the FBI investigating a crime, but there is something wrong with them doing it incompetently.
Actually, plenty of Libertarians are into anarchy. Of course, anarchy can mean a lot of things, from bomb-throwing radicals who just want to destroy the rule of law to people who believe that ultimately what allows societies to work is that most people behave ethically, and that consequently there is no need for some single institution to have a monopoly on the rule of law. A lot of libertarians subscribe to this latter kind of anarchism. I'm sympathetic, personally, but don't think it's practical.
Millions of *dollars* worth of servers. Which at today's prices means probably a thousand machines, give or take, and depending on how many millions.
They'll spend all night banging him if he's a good lay and they enjoy being with him, or if they're insecure and appreciate his attention.
People make decisions for all kinds of stupid reasons. You got an expensive car because you thought it'd get you banged all night, after all. How'd that work out for you?
Seriously, just live your life. Do something meaningful with it - something that you find satisfying. If you find that you have a tight smile when you try to smile back at a women who's smiling at you, figure out why, and do something about it. If you have trouble conversing, practice. Don't expect to get lucky with your practice partners - they're going to be Just Friends. Deal with it.
It's true that there are women who will never look twice at you unless you have a fast car. That's okay. There are also women who will never look twice at you if you aren't doing anything meaningful with your life. They're a lot more fun to spend your life with.
What's wrong with picking up tampons? You want blood all over the couch? Honestly, whenever I've picked up tampons for my sweetie, she's amazed at what a nice guy she landed. So I jump at the opportunity - I don't get that kind of appreciation when I go out to the store to pick up a carton of milk!
If it's really so stale that your sweetie doesn't appreciate it that way, maybe you need to figure out what you're doing wrong.