Used cars are sold all the time. It has no bearing on new car sales. If those people could afford a new car, they would buy one.
I don't know what you're smoking, but used cars sales have a huge bearing on new car sales. It's even been in the news lately.
I can afford a new car, but I usually buy used cars because it saves me lots of money I can spend on other things.
And I feel that this is right, moral, and the way things should be. If Detroit wants to sell me a car instead, they should make cars that I'd want to buy, at prices I'd want to pay for them. If they can't make cars that people will buy, then they need to go out of business to make room for somebody who will.
Ultimately, every used car was once a new car. The only problem I see here is that it encourages auto makers to `design in' obsolescence to their cars, but I don't have a solution to that.
It takes money from game publishers every time you sell a used game.
To be more precise, it takes money from them every time they lose a sale, and if somebody buys your used game rather than buying a new one, they've lost a sale.
And what do I think about that? Boo hoo. They're selling a physical object that can be traded and sold. If they don't want this to happen, they should be selling something else -- a service of some sort perhaps? (And no, selling a game with a shrink wrapped license doesn't make it a service.)
Every time you buy a used car, you're costing the auto industry money in exactly the same way. A used book? Authors are starving! A used house? Carpenters need to eat too!
Garage sales? Think of all the damage they're doing to our economy?@!! Goodwill -- evil to the core!
120 VAC = 120 VAC RMS. The peak voltage may be 170 volts, which would make Vp-p 340 volts.
The appropriate replacement would be 120 VDC, not 170 VDC. Some devices would handle the extra voltage OK, and others would fry quickly.
As for most modern electronics working, that's debatable. I believe that switching power supplies generally work, but anything with your basic transformer and bridge rectifier certainly will not. Anything with an AC motor that's powered directly by the 120 VAC will not.
Of course, while $0.02/KB sounds like an awful lot -- and for 1.4 GB of data, it certainly is -- it's significantly less than what most people in the US pay for SMS messages -- even if they have a plan, and there's no roaming or international charges involved.
Consider that a SMS message is 160 bytes max, and assume 64 bytes of overhead (just a guess), that works out to only half a cent per message. And that's at the `uber high international data rate' !
`True multitasking' as done on single processor machines IS time slicing.
Perhaps you're thinking of preemptive multitasking? Cooperative multitasking would be the alternative, as implemented by Windows 3.1 and classic MacOS.
And really, the type of multitasking available has little to do with the complexity of the OS. Even AmigaOS and OS/2 (2.0 and later) had preemptive multitasking.
No, he didn't imply raid 5. (You did seem to infer that, however.)
Raid 1 would only require two drives. But having three lets you do raid 1, and then periodically remove one of the drives and store it safely offsite and then replace it with the other drive and let the raid rebuild itself. That *is* a proper backup -- though personally I'd just periodically update one backup drive with rsync or something similar with the other backup drive being kept offsite.
Actually, it was more of an intentional logical error than me being pedantic.
`If you don't give a receipt, it's theft' does not imply `If you do give a receipt, it's not theft'.
... though I tend to doubt that the law states that if the police confiscate something and don't give you a receipt that it's theft. Though I can certainly see why somebody might think that -- though I don't really think the receipt is that relevant. What's more relevant is 1) why they took it and 2) will they give it back? (though a receipt probably does make it more likely that they'll give it back.)
It's worse than that. If you're on a salary, your employer (and that paper you signed) says you're always on the clock, and therefore if the ideas are even remotely related to what your employer does, they belong to them.
Once such pictures are published it is almost impossible to find an impartial jury.
Not the problem of the photographer, at least not in the US.
In general, you DO have the right to photograph an arrest. You can even record it, though it's possible that that could fall under wiretap laws if it's done without at least the knowledge of one of the parties of the arrest (would depend on the state.) But just because you have a right to do something, that doesn't mean the police won't attempt to stop you from exercising this right...
Similarly, you can publish this photograph as well, even without permission of those being photographed. Depending on what you're doing with the picture, you might need a model release, however -- but if you're simply publishing it as news, you do not.
As I said, this is in the US. No idea about other countries, though it wouldn't surprise me if they're similar.
Violating a EULA is generally a contract issue, not a criminal issue...
Similarly, just because a company or entity `has a policy', that doesn't mean you can be arrested for violating that policy. They can ask you to leave if you won't obey their policy, and if you refuse then you can be arrested for trespassing -- but 1) you're not being arrested for not following the policy, and 2) you have to be asked to leave first (assuming that you're in a place that you have a reasonable reason to believe you're allowed in in the first place. In a public train terminal, OK. In the locked office, maybe not...)
It's amazing how many companies (or maybe just their employees or managers?) seem to confuse policies with laws...
Of course, the USSR put Sputnik into orbit in 1957. (Though it wasn't a single kilogram -- it was about 80 of them.) (The US put up Explorer 1 four months later in 1958.)
To put a `single kilogram' into orbit is significantly easier than what Rutan's company has already done. The problem is that they need to put many kilograms up there, and then they need to bring it back down again, safely, and they need to do it in a cost effective manner.
"Then the wolves didn't touch you Karen. If I had included your last name or email address, then yes, you could ask me that question but as it stands, you are just a nameless school teacher that evoked a public response from me."
AISD has all the teachers for all their schools up on their web site. First name and last.
There's not that many middle schools, and only a few of them have a teacher named Karen. I looked them all up and had it narrowed down to about five Karens in about 10 minutes. The next step would have been (no, I didn't do this) to call each one (phone numbers are there too) right after class gets out and ask about the incident. If she doesn't know about it, move on. But if she does, she'd probably immediately get defensive, immediately telling you which Karen it was.
He might as well just given her full name and school -- he gave enough information to track her down with a little effort. Though perhaps he anticipated this and Karen isn't her real name? Hopefully?
I thought about not posting this, but figured I'm not so much more clever than everybody else, so if I can do it, so can anybody else. Maybe somebody will read this and next time will do a better job of not giving out enough facts about somebody to deduce who they are when they are trying to hide their identity.
GM = genetically modified. Generally these are more productive or otherwise better than the crops they replace.
Organic = well, all food is organic, but in general when people refer to `organic food' they mean not made with pesticides, antibiotics, etc. And yes, `Organic' methods usually produce less usable food than the `non organic' methods. But the GP post was talking about GM crops, not organic crops.
The code is (I assume) not a part of the proper gcc (or other compiler) distribution. It was a proof of concept, written and then immediately pointed to and then the author said `see?!?!?!' It was never added to any released software (that I'm aware of.)
But you wanted a citation? Here ya go, read the `27.1.2 Trusting Trust' section. Looks like I was wrong about the date -- it wasn't 20 years ago, it was at least 24 years ago.
OeLeWaPpErKe may have gotten the compiler wrong (since gcc came out in 1987, and this hacked compiler was written about in 1984, it couldn't have been gcc.) But I'd say that the odds are approximately 100% that somebody has made a similar alteration to gcc, which would make what OeLeWaPpErKe said correct. Now, hopefully that change (or anything similar) never made it into the gcc or egcs distributions, but it's possible, and if done skillfully (or with the collaboration of the other people in a position to detect it) it could be difficult to detect.
In any event, read the entire page I cited, and the next few pages in the book. It might help you explain why people are suspicious of the Chinese government's motives here. Or if you want to read the original 1984 paper, here ya go.
The compiler he's talking about was written... something like 20 years ago. If it was compiling/bin/login, it added a back door. It was more of a proof of concept than a real cracker tool, but in the twenty or so years since, crackers have gotten much more clever than that.
How many millions of code went into Red Flag Linux? Do you have the time and skill to audit every one for back doors? And even if you do and you do, but you get the binary version, what's to ensure that the binary version was compiled from the same source that you audited?\
By mandating a specific distribution, the Chinese government is acting very strangely. It could just be a national pride thing, use what was made in China, but there are other possible reasons.
Well, at some point a rootkit is basically the same as modifying the kernel. But Microsoft might want to make it seem `amateurish' to make it easier to deny in case they were ever caught...
But ultimately he's right -- you're trusting Microsoft with your computer. The NSA/government could force Microsoft to add a back door, and while we might suspect it, we're unlikely to ever be able to detect it, at least not until it's used...
And yes, thanks to Windows Update, Microsoft could add or change this back door at any time.
And it's not just Microsoft. You're trusting everybody who's made anything that you've installed on your computer, and that list is huge. Much of the software (drivers, for example) that Microsoft ships wasn't even written by Microsoft -- so you're trusting these other vendors even if you only install stuff off the Windows cd and nowhere else.
Ultimately, there's three choices -- 1) write all your own software, 2) know enough to audit every line of every bit of software you use and actually spend the time to do this before you use it, or 3) trust somebody else to keep the software you use secure. And mostly we pick #3.
That said, when it comes to the list of organizations/people I trust, the Government of China is pretty low on the list, especially when they're making mandates that really only make sense if there's an ulterior motive involved, and I can only think of one appropriate ulterior motive -- that they've somehow compromised Red Flag Linux. Being open source increases how much I trust it, but I still know it could be compromised and not detected in many ways.
On that topic, is it very easy to get the source code for Red Flag Linux and to compile the whole thing from source?
Yes, it probably is.
But that doesn't mean it's free from backdoors. It also doesn't even guarantee that the binaries that are available were actually compiled with the source that's available. The binaries could be compromised and the source not...
In any event, I'm certainly good with *nix, but I don't have the skills or the time to do a full scale security audit of the Linux kernel, let alone an entire distribution. If the Chinese government wanted to put a backdoor into a Linux distribution, especially one maintained in China, they probably could do it and could do it in a way that it would be difficult to detect. (Same goes for the NSA (selinux anybody? though I imagine it's been very carefully vetted by those way smarter than me, though selinux is MUCH smaller than a full distribution), KGB, whatever.)
Since the government wants people to install that particular distribution and only that one, and that the government is known for surveillance and such, I'd say the odds of it being open to them very high. And on that basis alone, I'd be reluctant to use it, especially if I was doing things that the government would care about. But if the penalty for non-compliance is high, and the odds of getting caught are high, then I guess you do what you're told, or you disappear...
Of course, the lawyer doesn't work for his best interest, the lawyer works for the colleges best interest, they are paying him.
Well, if the lawyer's services are offered to the student body (i.e. that's his job), then when he's working on their behalf then he should have their best interests at heart -- even if what he tells them isn't in the university's interests.
And if there is a conflict of interest that can't be rectified, then he should inform the student (and/or University) of this.
You could just ask him about conflicts of interests -- he's not likely to lie about it. And of course I guess you could always get another lawyer to consider the position of the first lawyer...
Ice Nine always struck me as the ultimate doomsday device...
... one that didn't kill everybody all at once, that people could counteract on a small scale but they couldn't fix all at once. If everybody dies in two miliseconds, where's the terror in that?
Slashdot Mirror
Used cars are sold all the time. It has no bearing on new car sales. If those people could afford a new car, they would buy one.
I don't know what you're smoking, but used cars sales have a huge bearing on new car sales. It's even been in the news lately.
I can afford a new car, but I usually buy used cars because it saves me lots of money I can spend on other things.
And I feel that this is right, moral, and the way things should be. If Detroit wants to sell me a car instead, they should make cars that I'd want to buy, at prices I'd want to pay for them. If they can't make cars that people will buy, then they need to go out of business to make room for somebody who will.
Ultimately, every used car was once a new car. The only problem I see here is that it encourages auto makers to `design in' obsolescence to their cars, but I don't have a solution to that.
It takes money from game publishers every time you sell a used game.
To be more precise, it takes money from them every time they lose a sale, and if somebody buys your used game rather than buying a new one, they've lost a sale.
And what do I think about that? Boo hoo. They're selling a physical object that can be traded and sold. If they don't want this to happen, they should be selling something else -- a service of some sort perhaps? (And no, selling a game with a shrink wrapped license doesn't make it a service.)
Every time you buy a used car, you're costing the auto industry money in exactly the same way. A used book? Authors are starving! A used house? Carpenters need to eat too!
Garage sales? Think of all the damage they're doing to our economy?@!! Goodwill -- evil to the core!
120 VAC = 120 VAC RMS. The peak voltage may be 170 volts, which would make Vp-p 340 volts.
The appropriate replacement would be 120 VDC, not 170 VDC. Some devices would handle the extra voltage OK, and others would fry quickly.
As for most modern electronics working, that's debatable. I believe that switching power supplies generally work, but anything with your basic transformer and bridge rectifier certainly will not. Anything with an AC motor that's powered directly by the 120 VAC will not.
And you for one welcome our new Volt overlords?
Of course, while $0.02/KB sounds like an awful lot -- and for 1.4 GB of data, it certainly is -- it's significantly less than what most people in the US pay for SMS messages -- even if they have a plan, and there's no roaming or international charges involved.
Consider that a SMS message is 160 bytes max, and assume 64 bytes of overhead (just a guess), that works out to only half a cent per message. And that's at the `uber high international data rate' !
Yes, because everybody keeps 500 GB drives of random data on their computer.
`True multitasking' as done on single processor machines IS time slicing.
Perhaps you're thinking of preemptive multitasking? Cooperative multitasking would be the alternative, as implemented by Windows 3.1 and classic MacOS.
And really, the type of multitasking available has little to do with the complexity of the OS. Even AmigaOS and OS/2 (2.0 and later) had preemptive multitasking.
And it's amazing how many people don't understand why.
No, he didn't imply raid 5. (You did seem to infer that, however.)
Raid 1 would only require two drives. But having three lets you do raid 1, and then periodically remove one of the drives and store it safely offsite and then replace it with the other drive and let the raid rebuild itself. That *is* a proper backup -- though personally I'd just periodically update one backup drive with rsync or something similar with the other backup drive being kept offsite.
Sure, why not? It's just that your hourly rate isn't very high ...
Actually, it was more of an intentional logical error than me being pedantic.
`If you don't give a receipt, it's theft' does not imply `If you do give a receipt, it's not theft'.
It's worse than that. If you're on a salary, your employer (and that paper you signed) says you're always on the clock, and therefore if the ideas are even remotely related to what your employer does, they belong to them.
Once such pictures are published it is almost impossible to find an impartial jury.
Not the problem of the photographer, at least not in the US.
In general, you DO have the right to photograph an arrest. You can even record it, though it's possible that that could fall under wiretap laws if it's done without at least the knowledge of one of the parties of the arrest (would depend on the state.) But just because you have a right to do something, that doesn't mean the police won't attempt to stop you from exercising this right ...
Similarly, you can publish this photograph as well, even without permission of those being photographed. Depending on what you're doing with the picture, you might need a model release, however -- but if you're simply publishing it as news, you do not.
As I said, this is in the US. No idea about other countries, though it wouldn't surprise me if they're similar.
Violating a EULA is generally a contract issue, not a criminal issue ...
Similarly, just because a company or entity `has a policy', that doesn't mean you can be arrested for violating that policy. They can ask you to leave if you won't obey their policy, and if you refuse then you can be arrested for trespassing -- but 1) you're not being arrested for not following the policy, and 2) you have to be asked to leave first (assuming that you're in a place that you have a reasonable reason to believe you're allowed in in the first place. In a public train terminal, OK. In the locked office, maybe not ...)
It's amazing how many companies (or maybe just their employees or managers?) seem to confuse policies with laws ...
So if I take your camera from you, and give you a receipt, it's not theft? :)
(No, I'm not a cop.)
Of course, the USSR put Sputnik into orbit in 1957. (Though it wasn't a single kilogram -- it was about 80 of them.) (The US put up Explorer 1 four months later in 1958.)
To put a `single kilogram' into orbit is significantly easier than what Rutan's company has already done. The problem is that they need to put many kilograms up there, and then they need to bring it back down again, safely, and they need to do it in a cost effective manner.
AISD has all the teachers for all their schools up on their web site. First name and last.
There's not that many middle schools, and only a few of them have a teacher named Karen. I looked them all up and had it narrowed down to about five Karens in about 10 minutes. The next step would have been (no, I didn't do this) to call each one (phone numbers are there too) right after class gets out and ask about the incident. If she doesn't know about it, move on. But if she does, she'd probably immediately get defensive, immediately telling you which Karen it was.
He might as well just given her full name and school -- he gave enough information to track her down with a little effort. Though perhaps he anticipated this and Karen isn't her real name? Hopefully?
I thought about not posting this, but figured I'm not so much more clever than everybody else, so if I can do it, so can anybody else. Maybe somebody will read this and next time will do a better job of not giving out enough facts about somebody to deduce who they are when they are trying to hide their identity.
GM = genetically modified. Generally these are more productive or otherwise better than the crops they replace.
Organic = well, all food is organic, but in general when people refer to `organic food' they mean not made with pesticides, antibiotics, etc. And yes, `Organic' methods usually produce less usable food than the `non organic' methods. But the GP post was talking about GM crops, not organic crops.
The code is (I assume) not a part of the proper gcc (or other compiler) distribution. It was a proof of concept, written and then immediately pointed to and then the author said `see?!?!?!' It was never added to any released software (that I'm aware of.)
But you wanted a citation? Here ya go, read the `27.1.2 Trusting Trust' section. Looks like I was wrong about the date -- it wasn't 20 years ago, it was at least 24 years ago.
OeLeWaPpErKe may have gotten the compiler wrong (since gcc came out in 1987, and this hacked compiler was written about in 1984, it couldn't have been gcc.) But I'd say that the odds are approximately 100% that somebody has made a similar alteration to gcc, which would make what OeLeWaPpErKe said correct. Now, hopefully that change (or anything similar) never made it into the gcc or egcs distributions, but it's possible, and if done skillfully (or with the collaboration of the other people in a position to detect it) it could be difficult to detect.
In any event, read the entire page I cited, and the next few pages in the book. It might help you explain why people are suspicious of the Chinese government's motives here. Or if you want to read the original 1984 paper, here ya go.
Get serious? Seriously?
The compiler he's talking about was written ... something like 20 years ago. If it was compiling /bin/login, it added a back door. It was more of a proof of concept than a real cracker tool, but in the twenty or so years since, crackers have gotten much more clever than that.
How many millions of code went into Red Flag Linux? Do you have the time and skill to audit every one for back doors? And even if you do and you do, but you get the binary version, what's to ensure that the binary version was compiled from the same source that you audited?\
By mandating a specific distribution, the Chinese government is acting very strangely. It could just be a national pride thing, use what was made in China, but there are other possible reasons.
Well, at some point a rootkit is basically the same as modifying the kernel. But Microsoft might want to make it seem `amateurish' to make it easier to deny in case they were ever caught ...
But ultimately he's right -- you're trusting Microsoft with your computer. The NSA/government could force Microsoft to add a back door, and while we might suspect it, we're unlikely to ever be able to detect it, at least not until it's used ...
And yes, thanks to Windows Update, Microsoft could add or change this back door at any time.
And it's not just Microsoft. You're trusting everybody who's made anything that you've installed on your computer, and that list is huge. Much of the software (drivers, for example) that Microsoft ships wasn't even written by Microsoft -- so you're trusting these other vendors even if you only install stuff off the Windows cd and nowhere else.
Ultimately, there's three choices -- 1) write all your own software, 2) know enough to audit every line of every bit of software you use and actually spend the time to do this before you use it, or 3) trust somebody else to keep the software you use secure. And mostly we pick #3.
That said, when it comes to the list of organizations/people I trust, the Government of China is pretty low on the list, especially when they're making mandates that really only make sense if there's an ulterior motive involved, and I can only think of one appropriate ulterior motive -- that they've somehow compromised Red Flag Linux. Being open source increases how much I trust it, but I still know it could be compromised and not detected in many ways.
On that topic, is it very easy to get the source code for Red Flag Linux and to compile the whole thing from source?
Yes, it probably is. But that doesn't mean it's free from backdoors. It also doesn't even guarantee that the binaries that are available were actually compiled with the source that's available. The binaries could be compromised and the source not ...
In any event, I'm certainly good with *nix, but I don't have the skills or the time to do a full scale security audit of the Linux kernel, let alone an entire distribution. If the Chinese government wanted to put a backdoor into a Linux distribution, especially one maintained in China, they probably could do it and could do it in a way that it would be difficult to detect. (Same goes for the NSA (selinux anybody? though I imagine it's been very carefully vetted by those way smarter than me, though selinux is MUCH smaller than a full distribution), KGB, whatever.)
Since the government wants people to install that particular distribution and only that one, and that the government is known for surveillance and such, I'd say the odds of it being open to them very high. And on that basis alone, I'd be reluctant to use it, especially if I was doing things that the government would care about. But if the penalty for non-compliance is high, and the odds of getting caught are high, then I guess you do what you're told, or you disappear ...
Of course, the lawyer doesn't work for his best interest, the lawyer works for the colleges best interest, they are paying him.
Well, if the lawyer's services are offered to the student body (i.e. that's his job), then when he's working on their behalf then he should have their best interests at heart -- even if what he tells them isn't in the university's interests.
And if there is a conflict of interest that can't be rectified, then he should inform the student (and/or University) of this.
You could just ask him about conflicts of interests -- he's not likely to lie about it. And of course I guess you could always get another lawyer to consider the position of the first lawyer ...
$350 spent now may save many many thousands later ...
Ice Nine always struck me as the ultimate doomsday device ...