"But sharing your music with thousands of strangers is just plain WRONG."
You are just... plain WRONG!
Sharing intelectual property is not wrong, it is a win for the whole humanity.
Some thoughts about different forms of intelectual property:
1. Knowledge kept in secret, doesn't help anyone. Sharing knowledge is the most important in every society. Schools are aperfect example, nobody will doubt, that schools are very important... A teacher does nothing else, than sharing (or distributing) knowledge.
Do you want to turn time back and live in the dark age, where writing was a privilege of the rich and church?
Would you like to live in a world, where the man or woman who invented the wheel has patented it and would forbid everyone the usage of wheels, or charges very much for the usage of wheels?
2. Art, every kind of art, whether it is music, pictures, movies, sculptures or whatever, enriches the life of a person seeing, hearing, wathing, touching it in some way.
I can't imagine any reason, why anyone should not have the right, to be enlighted from art.
Would you like to live in a world without art at all, or where you do not have the right to see, hear, feel art?
I think knowledge and art or mixtures of both cover all kind of intelectual property. There is nothing wrong, to share intelectual property with any other person, basically. (There isn't even something wrong in sharing _any_ property at all, basically!)
But it is something wrong, if the creator of intelectual (or other) property can't make a living.
Generaly trading is a good idea, to avoid that someone cannot make a living. It is based on the simple idea to give something of your own work, in order to get something of someone else work.
There are fair trades, where neither of both feel ripped off. And there are unfair trades, one or the other is ripped off.
Regarding music, the key question is, what a fair trade would be.
Paying per song/Albun/CD? Maybe, but not with the current prices. (My opinion) And there is something with paying per song, that is complicated. Do I pay at the moment I first listen to a song? Must I pay for a song, that I don't like? I think I don't have to buy for songs i don't like, or would you pay for everything (physical!) produced in the world? Now, how should I find out, what songs I don't like and which ones not, if not first commiting copyright infrigement? (Asuming non mainstream songs, that are played the whole day long on every radio station) And another point is on what media the music is stored. Why mus I buy a CD and a CD player in order to listen to music, or any other media that is the prefered media of the recording industry? Every day there are new technologies and I like to have _MY_ music on the media of _MY_ choice!
Actually, paying per song, is a buisness model that cannot fit customers expectations any more!
It is not a question of paying musicians (or other artists) and all the people they need to pruduce their music. I am willing to pay in order for them to make a (good, even much better than mine!) living.
I am even willing to pay some more for the music I hear, to make it possible for others, who have less money than I have, to listen to any music they like, at any time in any place and as often they like.
The old (current) buisness model of the recording industry is completly obsolete! As in every buisness, you are out of buisness, if you don't know (and understand) what your customers want.
Any time, any media, any place, any song... and of course a reasonable, fair price!
What hardware used doesn't make much difference, when benchmarking the efficency of different filesystems. The relarions between these filesystems will not vary much.
IT's like with every "test"... a specific test scenario, will not neccessaryly reveal what _you_ want to know. Download the scripts and setup _your_ test-scenario, then _you_ will get the results _you_ are interested in.;)
Collect my IP an MAC address, you still won't find my identity!
I'm using old fashioned accoustic modem in a public telephne box, with an call-by-call provider. Or, maybe I'am sitting in a car with a laptop and connect through an unsafely set up WLAN from "Joe Doe dentist".
You are obviously not a hacker, since you don't understand that IP and MAC-addresses are no trail to a hackers identity! It is just too simple to disconnect your identity from the IP and MAC-addresses.
Unless you want to earn some money with that contest, a real man is safe. And if you find a rare vulnerability and explain them this vulnerability, they are likley to kiss your ass, since they are buisnessman and can earn even more money with the hackers knowledge.
It's the geeks that manage even such huge amounts of work... and the rest is well adviced to join some existing rounding-up-the-existing-wheels-projects;)
It's the good ol' try and error method to answer the question to be a geek, or not. There is nothing wrong with it;)
Should GUI be optimized for speed... yes, but speed is relative!
As a developer, I for one welcome everthing that speeds up UI-development!
I typicaly use 20-30% (perhaps up to 40%) of the time to develop the neccesary "functional" (data mangling) part of an project. The rest of the time to develop a nice GUI. A nice, generalized, extendable and flexible protocol (XML?) could speed up development a lot, would be a good idea to do so.
In (my programming-)practice specialized protocols suck. Everytime you need to extend or change something in the protocol, you first throw away everything else based on a specialized protocol. Good, the data mangling stays intact, it is _just_ neccessary to rework the whole GUI!?
The capabilities of graphics processing units develop that fast, that there is a need, for an flexible and extendable comunication layers between the different parts of the whole system to benefit from hardware improvements. If different parts of the whole graphics system communicate via a specialized protocols, then they are outdated within a few month and a rework of the protocol and the all parts of the GUI based on these protocols have to be reworked.
Exactly that's why X is slow, you have a super power graphics card in your box, but don't use these super power features, because development is slowed down to almost null. The _specialized_ protocols have to be that _general_ to support _every_ underlying hardware and system. Specific features/extensions are either excluded by default in specialized protocols or are a lot of work to be included.
Sometimes it is neccesary to break existing "wheels" and invent new ones, to make things much better.
Why was ipchains removed from the kernel and replaced by iptables? Why did they reinvent this wheel? Because iptables is much better.
With every major kernel version, old wheels are replaced with new, better ones, despite the fact that this leads to many troubles.
The only thing matters is the final result and not the amount of work involved or the troubles caused.
This project is not in a stage, where one can say it failed or it succeeded, thus you can't say that "this is an example of how open-source failed"... not yet!
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."
This inevitably leads to vastly varying systems, even if they are all based on (the) Linux (Kernel) or X(lib).
Why should we give up our freedom in favor of unification? It's this freedom that will make Linux mainstream... or at least it should be, IMHO.
X isn't the best, creating more alternatives (while staying compatible with existing programs) will create more choices, and with a little luck a better choice will be created. And if there is something better than linux already is, it will help to become mainstrem.
I agree, explicit permission is the only way to go.
But there is a major disadvantage. You do more often don't know who will send you are email, than you know.
Just look at your mails at work, how often they are forwarded/replied between different people who actually did not know before.
You forward a complaint from one of your customers to your buisiness partner, but the guy recived the mail can't help and forwards it to the an expert. The expert needs some more information from your customer... and then?
This example will become realy complicated communication, with whitelists... Your customer either takes the good ol' phone or is a lost customer then.
Try to filter a mail, that consists of a small html body, just to display a gif-image (the actual content) contained as attachment.
If you manage that with OCR, then the spammer might send a puzzle of images... or send a little JScript, that decryp an attached crypted binary... or, whatever neccesary to bypass existing filters.
A filter is a filter, some things pass others don't. If spam doesn't pass anymore, the next generation of spam that pass existing filters *will* be constructed.
So the answer is, yes, spam filters constantly improve, but no, you won't notice any improvement. What you will notice is an increasing number of spammails, as one counter measure from spammers to ever more filtered mails and a race on spam/antispam arms.
Yes, but can we stop them making money? And how can we stop them making money?
There is almost no cost in spamming. Furthermore, cost for spamming does not increase proportional to the amount of spam mails sent.
Spammers don't pay for the bandwidth they use, because many spammers hack into a server, place their address list, a mail template and a little spamming tool. The Bandwidth used is paid by innocent people, owning the hacked servers.
That said, we can't efficently (significantly) increase cost for spamming. But better anti spam technology significantly increases cost for the spam defence.
And _all_ previous anti spam techniques have just prooven, that spammers can increase the amount of spammails sent by incredible factors. Anything ever done against spam did not hurt them!
If you ask me, who is on a lost position, anti spam is... at least, if there are not major changes. Just making spamming more and more difficult is not a major change and leads to ever more spam.
A mojor change I can imagine, would to turn around the principlie from first accepting every email (and then filtering) to first accept _nothing_ and then grant explicit permission. But that also has major drawbacks, as everyone can imagine.
Isn't the horribly increasing number of spam mails evidence enough? If they would double their profit as fast as they double their spam rate, they would be richer than everyone else.
Can you imagine reasons to increase the number of spam-mails sent? Of course, profit is the reason.
But do they make more profit? I think it is obvious, that they don't increase their profit in the same way, as they increase their spam. (Spam increases by a factor of 2048 per year, according to the article. Imagine they would have a revenue of ridiculous 1000$ last year from spam, then this years revenue would be over $2m, if both revenue and number of spam is directly correlated;) And next years revenue $4b... oh, the about the same as the GNP of the US after 2 years, when starting with 1000$!?
Nonsense, the spam increases in the same way, as filters improve and the number of spam that bypasses all filters stays constant, on average.
Real evidence is difficult here, but you'll find evidence if you take a look on how "normal" marketing works.
For every marketing caimpaign, weather it is tv-spots, paper-mails or anything else, they first estimate the response-rate for that campaign. Normaly the estimation is based on previous caimpains. And after that, the actual ammount of spots (papermails or whatever) sent is determined, or the campaign is canceld because of cost. However cost is (almost?) not a factor for spamming and they can increase the number of emails sent up to the sky, because email is cheaper than anything else.
I don't actually suggest, removing spam filters and stopping the fight against spam, but I belive, that the fight _is_ senseless.
The importaint figure is how many positive responses, they get and this is (soley) based on the number of advertises that individuals recognize. Regarding spam, the number of mails, that pass filters an pop up in you inbox.
Some examples for a evidence of the vicious circle, besides increasing number of spammails. First there where spammails, then simple (text) filters. Then there were spammails, that avoided detection from these simple filters (multipart alternative mails). Then filters were constantly improved, and spammails were improved to avoid these filters to. Now, there are spams, that avoid any filter, by using images, to "hide" there content from the filters. What's next, OCR-Filters that bring these images down to a text version and filter that?
Whatever has done to filter out spammail was sensless, still the number of mails that hit our inboxes are constant, although we upgrade out filters permanently. Of course, your email account is worthless if you don't filter and don't constantly improve your "anti-spam".
The result is always the same for the user, you have to live with a certan amount of spam, if you like or not and there is nothing you can do about it. Any measurement against spam, just increases the number of spam. Sad but true. The only "perfect solution" to stop spam is to cancel your email account.
A catch-22 situation as long as you _don't_ want to decide weather you accept any mail (as email was intended) or to accept only mails from people with an _explicit_ permision. Anything in between (as any spam-filters is), will always leave enough room left for spammers.
With decreasing number of positive responses(for the spammer), the spammer increase the number spammails sent, as this compensates the decreasing number of positive responses. It does not matter by which means positive responses decrease.
That's the viicious circle already in place with spam. Spammers double their spamm in a few weeks, because theire positive responses decreases, due to spam filters and increasing ignorance.
It defnitley will continue that way, until the point, where email at a whole is completely useless.
Your argumentation around IE is very intresting.
To sumarize in short:
Korea is heavily dependant on IE (proprietary software/standards in general?) and that's the reason why a change to another software (anything, not only opensource) is very costly.
So why change, if the change it is that expensive?
Actually a shortsighnet argumentation, since you only cover the time such changes endure.
Fine, you suggested Korea to stay with proprietary standards and to slip in always deeper dependancy on proprietary standards, because swithching to open standards _is_ costly.
A classical vicious circle, because of a shortsightned vision.
TCO of the next 2 years is much lower than costs for a change.
The oversight is that, after a change the TCO is lower and you save money _every_ year. Even if the return of investment (costs for a change) will be just in 10 or 20 or even a 100 years, RoT will be ther if the TCO is lower after a change.
Korea (gov't only) expects to save $300m per year after a change. If that is right, they could invest $3 billion and achieve RoT after 10 years.
Regarding changes in web technology, there is a momentum, you have missed. All web technology undergoes constant changes!
New hardware development and all new possibilities resulting from constant software development and vonstantly increasing expectation of customers (regarding web-services) and competitive pressure from rival companies make it neccessary to _always_ improve, adjust and change the webtechnology.
Actually there are _additional_ costs for a change in infrastructure-design (and the same with buisness models) since they are always there!
The web is and always was and will be (at least for the next 10 years) under constant development, so it does not lead to _additional_ costs when using open standards!
(In fact it leads to money savings in general.)
I like biting dogs... let's see who has the better teeth;)
You asked for numbers, here we go...
About the waste, (I'll refere to the german reactor Lingen II, a 1.3 GW nuclear plant)
This reactor need 33 tons enriched uraniumhexafluorid (UF 6) per year.
These 33 tons are produced out of 220 tons UF 6. (187 tons of highly radioktive waste to dispose)
To priduce these 220 tons of notmal UF 6 400 tons "yellow cake" (grounded uranimore) is needed. 180 tons of highly radiactive waste to dispose.
To produce 400 tons yellow cake 40000 tons uranium ore are nedded. 39600 tons waste to dispose, radioaktive but does not need to be disposed like the preivous materials.
For produce 40000 tons of uranium ore, 440000 tons rocks are digged out. another 400000 tons of radioaktive waste.
There are currently 438 nuclear power plants in use worldwide. I have no number on closed nuclear power plants worldwide, but in Germany alone there are 12 of them, wich alread have produced there immense ammount of waste. (And I am not sure how many nuclear reactors are in military submarienes, carriers and the like or how many scientific reactors exist.)
These 438 reactors produce 192,544,800 tons of radioactive waste per year and another 160746 tons of _highly_ radioactive waste. The last has to be handled with care for some thousand years.
The temporary disposal site I am aware of here in germany for the highly radioactive material can store about 4000 tons in total (deep exhausted salt mines preferable). I would belive that final disposals are not larger either. A single reactor fills up such a site withing 10 years of operation. Asuming a lifteime of 30 years per reactor, 3 of these sites for the highly radioactive waste per reactor.
How many of these final disposal sites are there world wide? I don't know, but I know that germany there is not even one, besides the fact, that we would need about a 100 sites!
One could think that reprocessing this highly radioactive waste is a solution, but it is not! Actually it produces even more highly radioactive waste, than mining produces. Just the huge amount of "normal" radioaktive waste from mining is avoided, but at the cost of much more highly radioactive waste. Choose your poison.
An in germany dismanteled nuclear power plant (Wuergassen) has had a total mass of 225,000 tons, all inclusive. (80% of the total mass is concrete, 180,000 tons) When dimantling that plant with huge effort 1.8% (4080 tons) were highly radioactive waste, 97% were disposed with normal radioactive waste and another 1,2% (2700 tons) could be recycled.
Previously there were mentioned 400 cubic metres concret, 7 tons each per wind turbine... as mentioned in some grand parent of this thread.
Thats 2800 tons concrete per turbine and 140,000 for 50 of them. So even 50 turbines to match energy output as you suggested use the same (slightly less) concrete. And that's without considering the other plants neccessary to produce the neccessary enriched uranium.
Overall Wind turbines use less concrete per MW, qed.
Online references are all in german... sorry, nevertheless I mention them, that you can proove these numbers.
(Dismantling a nuclear power plant) http://www.eon-kernkraft.com/Ressources/do wnloads/ rueckbau_wuergassen_010403.pdf
Reliability and predictability of energy output depends on many things. It is a question of how to measure it. The energy output graph of course looks far more random for wind turbines than for solar panels, therefore solar panels will "average" out in a shorter period of time than wind tubines. If you measure energy output reliability in short term, you're right, solar panels are more reliable.
But I wouldn't say one or the other is more reliable, I would say, solar panels have a more constant energy output.
As you said, nearly constant energy output strongly depends on the place. In the Netherlands for example, wind will probably be more reliable than solar.
I think wind, solar and water energy are all equally reliable, although not in the same place.
It's similar like cars... a roadster is reliable on roads, but not offroad. Wheras a off-road vehicle is not very efficent on a road, but reliable offroad.;) Just use the right one in the right place.
Regarding nuclear power the "cost" to produce power (stated by electricity producers) does not include all costs involved! Actually you argue on wrong numbers.
The current cost for deposing nuclear waste is definatly not the actual cost. Since the waste has to be deposed for thousands of years, the cost in future is not realy predictable. Companies deposing (any) waste are calculating on their _current_ costs. Their current cost is based on how expensive it is today, to acquire land used for a disposal site (besides wages and other costs.) They do not even care, if their company would be bankrupted in a 100 years. If such companies closees/bankrupts, noone cares about the disposal site, no other company would take them over, since there wont be any revenue. The onlyone who might care possibly is the government. Diposing nuclear waste is economical feasable since they take a very huge loan from future generations, that will pay costs for diposing nuclear waste of their ancestors.
Nuclear power is economicaly feasable, because of huge loans, noone ever intends to pay back that!
And that's not all. How expensive was Chernoyble!? Who paid that desaster? You are right, Chernoyble can't be compared to western nuclear power plants. Harrisburg was totaly different to Chernobyl, they just have lost control over their reactor and had _great luck_, that it did not meltdown!
To have had great luck does not mean, that it is better! Actually it prooves, that there is not a big difference! Chernobyl ~ Harrisburg ~ Western nuclear power plants!
Without trolling;)... Assuming that the chance of a desater like Chernobyl is a thousand times (or even more) times less in our nuclear power plants, it is just a matter of how many plants we have and how long they operate, to repeat the history. And don't forget, if a company gets in financial trouibles, they start to reduce costs and increase their production. Security is likly shortened first... that's what western powerplants really have common with Chernobyl!
But anyway, the MCA in Chernobyl did not only cost the sovjets a lot of money. Think about the worldwide fallout. At least in Europe an unimaginable amount of agricultural products los, increased cost to feed animals without contaminatated gras...
Another huge figure, not included in these "economicaly feasable" calculations.
And there are more of these cost! What about increased costs for health care, resulting from radiation? People living close to nuclear plants suffer from increased rates of cancer, leucemia and all the like.
Weather you like it or not, nobody can figure out the total cost involved with nuclear power and thus noone can proove that nuclear power is economical feasable. Moreover, there are serious doubts, even when not considering an MCA.
Anyway I the topic of the article was not energy production. The topic was, that heavyly interreliant systems tend to chainreaktions, that can lead to a total breakdown of large parts or even the whole system.
Weather it is the internet, electricity grid, a space shuttle(!) or... even a nuclear power plant, all complex system tend to that behavior.
Do you really try to tell people, that the same electricity producers (and controlling governments) can ensure us, that they are able to avoid an MCA (and associated costs) in a nuclear power plant, even if they have just prooven withing a few weeks, that they are unable to avoid such chainreactions in their power grids, that are less complex than a nuclear power plant!?
I'll tell you, it is economically feasable (for electricity producers) to save money on the stability of the power grid, because noone of them has to pay the financal loss resulting from a total breakdown.
I'll tell you, it is economically feasable (for electricity producers) to save money on the s
Hm, you're certainly right, with all you say.... However, you just throw some figures around you without any comparision to the other technologies and then draw a false conclusion!
Even with just considering CO2 resulting from casting (a working, that is including additonal facilities neccesary to operate!) powerplants, you don't get it right.
What about the outer wall arround the reactor of a nuclear power plant? (typically 2 meters thick) And the foundation of a nuclear powerplant, hell the foundation of a new built nuclear power plant should withstand a possible reactor meltdown! (typically 7 meters thick) What about the foundation of any power plant, everyone needs one!?
And don't forget, a nuclear reactor is worth nothing, without fuel. There must be mine for uranium/plutonium, the ore has to be converted into metal, the metal is not usable, it has to be enriched and finaly the exhausted fuel rods are enclosed in glass and disposed for about a thousand years. These containers for the final disposit almost certainly will leak some day and then the fuel rods will be enclosed again.
Quit a lot of transportation, lot's of additanal plants to cast.
Of course, the absolute numbers don't say much, but even compared to the total energy output for the whole lifetime.
I am pretty sure, that wind turbines use less concrete/kW to cast, than most other power plants. The same with exhaust gases emitted while building these plants.
And there is absolut no doubt, that fuel extraction, storage and transportation alone emitts by far more exhaust gases, than casting such a plant.
Someone mentioned batteries, hm... ok, after their lifetime they are waste. Let's compare them to the waste other powerplants produce. The whole nuclear powerplant is radioaktive waste after its lifetime! And what about the solid matter from filtering exhaust gases in coil/oil/gas fueld powerplants?
Most parts of batteries can be recycled, wheras the most of the waste from nuclear/oil/coil/gas fueled powerplants can not. Besides that the total amount of waste (just solid matter) of a wind turbine produces is less.
Come on, be serious, wind turbines are superior to any "classical" powerplant in almost every respect!
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, but is there any valid use of DNS wildcarding, that _cannot _ be achieved in different ways?
The are more interested in control, than the are interested in advertising.
With control, you can make much more $ than with advertising.
Asuming the would record misspells and offer a "service" to companies
Hey, for a few more $ you can register your domain name _plus_ 400 misspellings of your domain name, doesnt that sound grat for Mickeysoft!?
Besides technical aspects and that www is not the only use of the internet.
It can't be that a single company has the right to exclusivley claim a certain service.
What about the users freedom to choose wich service he uses to find a site?
I don't want to be dictated to Verisign, I don't want any dictatorship at all.
I think Bill Gates has much more in common with Thomas Eddison, than the RIAA has.
The RIAA _only_ adobts (and even tops) the bad thing's from Thomas Eddision, whereas Bill Gates has some of the good things from Thomas Eddison.
"But sharing your music with thousands of strangers is just plain WRONG."
You are just
Sharing intelectual property is not wrong, it is a win for the whole humanity.
Some thoughts about different forms of intelectual property:
1. Knowledge kept in secret, doesn't help anyone. Sharing knowledge is the most important in every society. Schools are aperfect example, nobody will doubt, that schools are very important
Do you want to turn time back and live in the dark age, where writing was a privilege of the rich and church?
Would you like to live in a world, where the man or woman who invented the wheel has patented it and would forbid everyone the usage of wheels, or charges very much for the usage of wheels?
2. Art, every kind of art, whether it is music, pictures, movies, sculptures or whatever, enriches the life of a person seeing, hearing, wathing, touching it in some way.
I can't imagine any reason, why anyone should not have the right, to be enlighted from art.
Would you like to live in a world without art at all, or where you do not have the right to see, hear, feel art?
I think knowledge and art or mixtures of both cover all kind of intelectual property. There is nothing wrong, to share intelectual property with any other person, basically.
(There isn't even something wrong in sharing _any_ property at all, basically!)
But it is something wrong, if the creator of intelectual (or other) property can't make a living.
Generaly trading is a good idea, to avoid that someone cannot make a living. It is based on the simple idea to give something of your own work, in order to get something of someone else work.
There are fair trades, where neither of both feel ripped off. And there are unfair trades, one or the other is ripped off.
Regarding music, the key question is, what a fair trade would be.
Paying per song/Albun/CD? Maybe, but not with the current prices. (My opinion)
And there is something with paying per song, that is complicated. Do I pay at the moment I first listen to a song? Must I pay for a song, that I don't like?
I think I don't have to buy for songs i don't like, or would you pay for everything (physical!) produced in the world?
Now, how should I find out, what songs I don't like and which ones not, if not first commiting copyright infrigement? (Asuming non mainstream songs, that are played the whole day long on every radio station)
And another point is on what media the music is stored. Why mus I buy a CD and a CD player in order to listen to music, or any other media that is the prefered media of the recording industry? Every day there are new technologies and I like to have _MY_ music on the media of _MY_ choice!
Actually, paying per song, is a buisness model that cannot fit customers expectations any more!
It is not a question of paying musicians (or other artists) and all the people they need to pruduce their music. I am willing to pay in order for them to make a (good, even much better than mine!) living.
I am even willing to pay some more for the music I hear, to make it possible for others, who have less money than I have, to listen to any music they like, at any time in any place and as often they like.
The old (current) buisness model of the recording industry is completly obsolete!
As in every buisness, you are out of buisness, if you don't know (and understand) what your customers want.
Any time, any media, any place, any song
1. Integrate Browser in OS -> Eliminate rivals.
2. Desintegrate Browser from OS -> Sell browser seperatly now
3. Profit!
4. Repeat with 1.
What hardware used doesn't make much difference, when benchmarking the efficency of different filesystems. The relarions between these filesystems will not vary much.
IT's like with every "test"
Download the scripts and setup _your_ test-scenario, then _you_ will get the results _you_ are interested in.
Can somebody explain me
Personaly I don't care, if I filled up a drive, I delete something or buy a new one.
However, to generalize, it is important that all people use the same measurement units, regardless of what is measured, to avoid misunderstanding.
Using different measurement units is only good, to causes troubles!
Does anyone remember why the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed?
Collect my IP an MAC address, you still won't find my identity!
I'm using old fashioned accoustic modem in a public telephne box, with an call-by-call provider.
Or, maybe I'am sitting in a car with a laptop and connect through an unsafely set up WLAN from "Joe Doe dentist".
You are obviously not a hacker, since you don't understand that IP and MAC-addresses are no trail to a hackers identity!
It is just too simple to disconnect your identity from the IP and MAC-addresses.
Unless you want to earn some money with that contest, a real man is safe.
And if you find a rare vulnerability and explain them this vulnerability, they are likley to kiss your ass, since they are buisnessman and can earn even more money with the hackers knowledge.
It's the geeks that manage even such huge amounts of work
It's the good ol' try and error method to answer the question to be a geek, or not. There is nothing wrong with it
Should GUI be optimized for speed
As a developer, I for one welcome everthing that speeds up UI-development!
I typicaly use 20-30% (perhaps up to 40%) of the time to develop the neccesary "functional" (data mangling) part of an project. The rest of the time to develop a nice GUI.
A nice, generalized, extendable and flexible protocol (XML?) could speed up development a lot, would be a good idea to do so.
In (my programming-)practice specialized protocols suck. Everytime you need to extend or change something in the protocol, you first throw away everything else based on a specialized protocol.
Good, the data mangling stays intact, it is _just_ neccessary to rework the whole GUI!?
The capabilities of graphics processing units develop that fast, that there is a need, for an flexible and extendable comunication layers between the different parts of the whole system to benefit from hardware improvements.
If different parts of the whole graphics system communicate via a specialized protocols, then they are outdated within a few month and a rework of the protocol and the all parts of the GUI based on these protocols have to be reworked.
Exactly that's why X is slow, you have a super power graphics card in your box, but don't use these super power features, because development is slowed down to almost null. The _specialized_ protocols have to be that _general_ to support _every_ underlying hardware and system. Specific features/extensions are either excluded by default in specialized protocols or are a lot of work to be included.
Sometimes it is neccesary to break existing "wheels" and invent new ones, to make things much better.
Why was ipchains removed from the kernel and replaced by iptables? Why did they reinvent this wheel? Because iptables is much better.
With every major kernel version, old wheels are replaced with new, better ones, despite the fact that this leads to many troubles.
The only thing matters is the final result and not the amount of work involved or the troubles caused.
This project is not in a stage, where one can say it failed or it succeeded, thus you can't say that "this is an example of how open-source failed"
Mainstream != Identical Systems
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."
This inevitably leads to vastly varying systems, even if they are all based on (the) Linux (Kernel) or X(lib).
Why should we give up our freedom in favor of unification?
It's this freedom that will make Linux mainstream
X isn't the best, creating more alternatives (while staying compatible with existing programs) will create more choices, and with a little luck a better choice will be created.
And if there is something better than linux already is, it will help to become mainstrem.
Oh, and think a bit more
YOU CAN'T COMPARE APPLES AND PIES !
I agree, explicit permission is the only way to go.
But there is a major disadvantage. You do more often don't know who will send you are email, than you know.
Just look at your mails at work, how often they are forwarded/replied between different people who actually did not know before.
You forward a complaint from one of your customers to your buisiness partner, but the guy recived the mail can't help and forwards it to the an expert. The expert needs some more information from your customer
This example will become realy complicated communication, with whitelists
Try to filter a mail, that consists of a small html body, just to display a gif-image (the actual content) contained as attachment.
If you manage that with OCR, then the spammer might send a puzzle of images
A filter is a filter, some things pass others don't. If spam doesn't pass anymore, the next generation of spam that pass existing filters *will* be constructed.
So the answer is, yes, spam filters constantly improve, but no, you won't notice any improvement.
What you will notice is an increasing number of spammails, as one counter measure from spammers to ever more filtered mails and a race on spam/antispam arms.
Yes, but can we stop them making money? And how can we stop them making money?
There is almost no cost in spamming. Furthermore, cost for spamming does not increase proportional to the amount of spam mails sent.
Spammers don't pay for the bandwidth they use, because many spammers hack into a server, place their address list, a mail template and a little spamming tool. The Bandwidth used is paid by innocent people, owning the hacked servers.
That said, we can't efficently (significantly) increase cost for spamming.
But better anti spam technology significantly increases cost for the spam defence.
And _all_ previous anti spam techniques have just prooven, that spammers can increase the amount of spammails sent by incredible factors. Anything ever done against spam did not hurt them!
If you ask me, who is on a lost position, anti spam is
A mojor change I can imagine, would to turn around the principlie from first accepting every email (and then filtering) to first accept _nothing_ and then grant explicit permission. But that also has major drawbacks, as everyone can imagine.
Isn't the horribly increasing number of spam mails evidence enough? If they would double their profit as fast as they double their spam rate, they would be richer than everyone else.
Can you imagine reasons to increase the number of spam-mails sent? Of course, profit is the reason.
But do they make more profit? I think it is obvious, that they don't increase their profit in the same way, as they increase their spam.
(Spam increases by a factor of 2048 per year, according to the article. Imagine they would have a revenue of ridiculous 1000$ last year from spam, then this years revenue would be over $2m, if both revenue and number of spam is directly correlated
Nonsense, the spam increases in the same way, as filters improve and the number of spam that bypasses all filters stays constant, on average.
Real evidence is difficult here, but you'll find evidence if you take a look on how "normal" marketing works.
For every marketing caimpaign, weather it is tv-spots, paper-mails or anything else, they first estimate the response-rate for that campaign. Normaly the estimation is based on previous caimpains. And after that, the actual ammount of spots (papermails or whatever) sent is determined, or the campaign is canceld because of cost.
However cost is (almost?) not a factor for spamming and they can increase the number of emails sent up to the sky, because email is cheaper than anything else.
I don't actually suggest, removing spam filters and stopping the fight against spam, but I belive, that the fight _is_ senseless.
The importaint figure is how many positive responses, they get and this is (soley) based on the number of advertises that individuals recognize. Regarding spam, the number of mails, that pass filters an pop up in you inbox.
Some examples for a evidence of the vicious circle, besides increasing number of spammails.
First there where spammails, then simple (text) filters.
Then there were spammails, that avoided detection from these simple filters (multipart alternative mails).
Then filters were constantly improved, and spammails were improved to avoid these filters to.
Now, there are spams, that avoid any filter, by using images, to "hide" there content from the filters. What's next, OCR-Filters that bring these images down to a text version and filter that?
Whatever has done to filter out spammail was sensless, still the number of mails that hit our inboxes are constant, although we upgrade out filters permanently.
Of course, your email account is worthless if you don't filter and don't constantly improve your "anti-spam".
The result is always the same for the user, you have to live with a certan amount of spam, if you like or not and there is nothing you can do about it. Any measurement against spam, just increases the number of spam.
Sad but true. The only "perfect solution" to stop spam is to cancel your email account.
A catch-22 situation as long as you _don't_ want to decide weather you accept any mail (as email was intended) or to accept only mails from people with an _explicit_ permision. Anything in between (as any spam-filters is), will always leave enough room left for spammers.
Wrong!
With decreasing number of positive responses(for the spammer), the spammer increase the number spammails sent, as this compensates the decreasing number of positive responses. It does not matter by which means positive responses decrease.
That's the viicious circle already in place with spam.
Spammers double their spamm in a few weeks, because theire positive responses decreases, due to spam filters and increasing ignorance.
It defnitley will continue that way, until the point, where email at a whole is completely useless.
1. Spam
2. ???
3. More spam
4. Profit
Your argumentation around IE is very intresting. To sumarize in short: Korea is heavily dependant on IE (proprietary software/standards in general?) and that's the reason why a change to another software (anything, not only opensource) is very costly. So why change, if the change it is that expensive? Actually a shortsighnet argumentation, since you only cover the time such changes endure. Fine, you suggested Korea to stay with proprietary standards and to slip in always deeper dependancy on proprietary standards, because swithching to open standards _is_ costly. A classical vicious circle, because of a shortsightned vision. TCO of the next 2 years is much lower than costs for a change. The oversight is that, after a change the TCO is lower and you save money _every_ year. Even if the return of investment (costs for a change) will be just in 10 or 20 or even a 100 years, RoT will be ther if the TCO is lower after a change. Korea (gov't only) expects to save $300m per year after a change. If that is right, they could invest $3 billion and achieve RoT after 10 years. Regarding changes in web technology, there is a momentum, you have missed. All web technology undergoes constant changes! New hardware development and all new possibilities resulting from constant software development and vonstantly increasing expectation of customers (regarding web-services) and competitive pressure from rival companies make it neccessary to _always_ improve, adjust and change the webtechnology. Actually there are _additional_ costs for a change in infrastructure-design (and the same with buisness models) since they are always there! The web is and always was and will be (at least for the next 10 years) under constant development, so it does not lead to _additional_ costs when using open standards! (In fact it leads to money savings in general.)
I like biting dogs
You asked for numbers, here we go
About the waste, (I'll refere to the german reactor Lingen II, a 1.3 GW nuclear plant)
This reactor need 33 tons enriched uraniumhexafluorid (UF 6) per year.
These 33 tons are produced out of 220 tons UF 6. (187 tons of highly radioktive waste to dispose)
To priduce these 220 tons of notmal UF 6 400 tons "yellow cake" (grounded uranimore) is needed. 180 tons of highly radiactive waste to dispose.
To produce 400 tons yellow cake 40000 tons uranium ore are nedded. 39600 tons waste to dispose, radioaktive but does not need to be disposed like the preivous materials.
For produce 40000 tons of uranium ore, 440000 tons rocks are digged out. another 400000 tons of radioaktive waste.
There are currently 438 nuclear power plants in use worldwide. I have no number on closed nuclear power plants worldwide, but in Germany alone there are 12 of them, wich alread have produced there immense ammount of waste.
(And I am not sure how many nuclear reactors are in military submarienes, carriers and the like or how many scientific reactors exist.)
These 438 reactors produce 192,544,800 tons of radioactive waste per year and another 160746 tons of _highly_ radioactive waste. The last has to be handled with care for some thousand years.
The temporary disposal site I am aware of here in germany for the highly radioactive material can store about 4000 tons in total (deep exhausted salt mines preferable). I would belive that final disposals are not larger either.
A single reactor fills up such a site withing 10 years of operation.
Asuming a lifteime of 30 years per reactor, 3 of these sites for the highly radioactive waste per reactor.
How many of these final disposal sites are there world wide? I don't know, but I know that germany there is not even one, besides the fact, that we would need about a 100 sites!
One could think that reprocessing this highly radioactive waste is a solution, but it is not!
Actually it produces even more highly radioactive waste, than mining produces.
Just the huge amount of "normal" radioaktive waste from mining is avoided, but at the cost of much more highly radioactive waste. Choose your poison.
An in germany dismanteled nuclear power plant (Wuergassen) has had a total mass of 225,000 tons, all inclusive. (80% of the total mass is concrete, 180,000 tons)
When dimantling that plant with huge effort 1.8% (4080 tons) were highly radioactive waste, 97% were disposed with normal radioactive waste and another 1,2% (2700 tons) could be recycled.
Previously there were mentioned 400 cubic metres concret, 7 tons each per wind turbine
Thats 2800 tons concrete per turbine and 140,000 for 50 of them. So even 50 turbines to match energy output as you suggested use the same (slightly less) concrete.
And that's without considering the other plants neccessary to produce the neccessary enriched uranium.
Overall Wind turbines use less concrete per MW, qed.
Online references are all in german
(Dismantling a nuclear power plant)
http://www.eon-kernkraft.com/Ressources/d
(Waste)
http://www.umwelt.org/robin-wood/germa
Reliability and predictability of energy output depends on many things. It is a question of how to measure it.
The energy output graph of course looks far more random for wind turbines than for solar panels, therefore solar panels will "average" out in a shorter period of time than wind tubines. If you measure energy output reliability in short term, you're right, solar panels are more reliable.
But I wouldn't say one or the other is more reliable, I would say, solar panels have a more constant energy output.
As you said, nearly constant energy output strongly depends on the place. In the Netherlands for example, wind will probably be more reliable than solar.
I think wind, solar and water energy are all equally reliable, although not in the same place.
It's similar like cars
Economicaly feasable is a very tricky thing.
Regarding nuclear power the "cost" to produce power (stated by electricity producers) does not include all costs involved!
Actually you argue on wrong numbers.
The current cost for deposing nuclear waste is definatly not the actual cost. Since the waste has to be deposed for thousands of years, the cost in future is not realy predictable. Companies deposing (any) waste are calculating on their _current_ costs. Their current cost is based on how expensive it is today, to acquire land used for a disposal site (besides wages and other costs.) They do not even care, if their company would be bankrupted in a 100 years. If such companies closees/bankrupts, noone cares about the disposal site, no other company would take them over, since there wont be any revenue. The onlyone who might care possibly is the government. Diposing nuclear waste is economical feasable since they take a very huge loan from future generations, that will pay costs for diposing nuclear waste of their ancestors.
Nuclear power is economicaly feasable, because of huge loans, noone ever intends to pay back that!
And that's not all. How expensive was Chernoyble!? Who paid that desaster? You are right, Chernoyble can't be compared to western nuclear power plants.
Harrisburg was totaly different to Chernobyl, they just have lost control over their reactor and had _great luck_, that it did not meltdown!
To have had great luck does not mean, that it is better! Actually it prooves, that there is not a big difference! Chernobyl ~ Harrisburg ~ Western nuclear power plants!
Without trolling
And don't forget, if a company gets in financial trouibles, they start to reduce costs and increase their production. Security is likly shortened first
But anyway, the MCA in Chernobyl did not only cost the sovjets a lot of money. Think about the worldwide fallout. At least in Europe an unimaginable amount of agricultural products los, increased cost to feed animals without contaminatated gras
Another huge figure, not included in these "economicaly feasable" calculations.
And there are more of these cost! What about increased costs for health care, resulting from radiation?
People living close to nuclear plants suffer from increased rates of cancer, leucemia and all the like.
Weather you like it or not, nobody can figure out the total cost involved with nuclear power and thus noone can proove that nuclear power is economical feasable. Moreover, there are serious doubts, even when not considering an MCA.
Anyway I the topic of the article was not energy production.
The topic was, that heavyly interreliant systems tend to chainreaktions, that can lead to a total breakdown of large parts or even the whole system.
Weather it is the internet, electricity grid, a space shuttle(!) or
Do you really try to tell people, that the same electricity producers (and controlling governments) can ensure us, that they are able to avoid an MCA (and associated costs) in a nuclear power plant, even if they have just prooven withing a few weeks, that they are unable to avoid such chainreactions in their power grids, that are less complex than a nuclear power plant!?
I'll tell you, it is economically feasable (for electricity producers) to save money on the stability of the power grid, because noone of them has to pay the financal loss resulting from a total breakdown.
I'll tell you, it is economically feasable (for electricity producers) to save money on the s
Hm, you're certainly right, with all you say.
However, you just throw some figures around you without any comparision to the other technologies and then draw a false conclusion!
Even with just considering CO2 resulting from casting (a working, that is including additonal facilities neccesary to operate!) powerplants, you don't get it right.
What about the outer wall arround the reactor of a nuclear power plant? (typically 2 meters thick) And the foundation of a nuclear powerplant, hell the foundation of a new built nuclear power plant should withstand a possible reactor meltdown! (typically 7 meters thick)
What about the foundation of any power plant, everyone needs one!?
And don't forget, a nuclear reactor is worth nothing, without fuel. There must be mine for uranium/plutonium, the ore has to be converted into metal, the metal is not usable, it has to be enriched and finaly the exhausted fuel rods are enclosed in glass and disposed for about a thousand years. These containers for the final disposit almost certainly will leak some day and then the fuel rods will be enclosed again.
Quit a lot of transportation, lot's of additanal plants to cast.
Of course, the absolute numbers don't say much, but even compared to the total energy output for the whole lifetime.
I am pretty sure, that wind turbines use less concrete/kW to cast, than most other power plants. The same with exhaust gases emitted while building these plants.
And there is absolut no doubt, that fuel extraction, storage and transportation alone emitts by far more exhaust gases, than casting such a plant.
Someone mentioned batteries, hm
Let's compare them to the waste other powerplants produce.
The whole nuclear powerplant is radioaktive waste after its lifetime!
And what about the solid matter from filtering exhaust gases in coil/oil/gas fueld powerplants?
Most parts of batteries can be recycled, wheras the most of the waste from nuclear/oil/coil/gas fueled powerplants can not.
Besides that the total amount of waste (just solid matter) of a wind turbine produces is less.
Come on, be serious, wind turbines are superior to any "classical" powerplant in almost every respect!