Not really, right? Even if there was, Microsoft doesn't seem to be interested in keeping it that way. With the "advent" of Vista and whatever relational-style FS they might try to forcably upgrade us to in the future, what are the odds of the prototypical modern journaling, etc FS being shared across the two? My guess is you're stuck with ext on linux and NTFS or whatever else on Windows. Of course, you could run NTFS on Linux if you've got two big brass ones.
Well, Virgin is looking at space tourism but really the technology these companies are pioneering is the key. The whole point of scaled composites is that they craft an entire aircraft on a CNC machine. Pretty impressive stuff if you ask me. This, along with other cheep launch vehicles, etc could help reinvigorate space travel. What's NASA working on?
- A moon base
- Building a space station
- Supporting the space shuttle with pointless missions
- Taking pictures of deep space
With the possible exception of the last one, what is the point of any of this? Anyone?
Besides the obvious tragedy of human loss, I hope this doesn't also sway them from continuing. With NASA spending money on colonizing the moon, guys like this may be our only chance for the future of interesting and pioneering science.
Well, speaking as an electrical engineer, power isn't not the problem. I think it's pretty well understood that given unlimited power you can do almost whatever you want in a system. The AI will come along in time but without power it's all a moot point. Just like launch vehicles, electric cars and pretty much anything useful, the problem is that as the power/fuel requirements go up, so does the need for lift, capacity, etc. This in turn, of course, causes your power requirements to go up again in a vicious cycle. Again, you're right about AI. However, as there is no sign of "nuclear batteries" or "mr. fusion" being that practical any time soon, this may be the next best thing. Or maybe even better.
I was wondering...why don't the cells get "blacker" in color the more efficient they are? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't higher efficiency imply more light is getting absorbed? Or does it simply mean that more light is getting converted to power?
At least he could admit it. There are probably plenty of people who don't really understand what a web site is other than as some page they can browse to.
Yeah, the outside of those building are sensitive (maybe not classified but that doesn't really matter). There's no difference between the security posture of a nuclear silo and war plans. They don't have those signs up because they're worried about you photographing the building, they have signs up because they're worried about you doing recon on the security detail. But then, that's sort of self-evident, isn't it?
Right, but this is a totally unrealistic view of the world. If government buildings are public places, you should be able to photograph those to, right? You should be able to photograph the invasion plans for Normandy, right? I'm as afraid of the slippery slope of censorship as the next person but surely the answer (as usual) is actually somewhere in the middle.
They're probably going to want to put some protection on those drives to make sure the movies are only show in the theater they were sent to. The theater can share with a friend theater but only on a limited basis. There's some indication that the theaters may be able to share wirelessly at some point but that doesn't really seem to work right now. A theater's right to show the film can be revoked at any time but it doesn't really matter since a major outlet already left the key in the clear.
I mean, say what you will about big brother but this is the next logical step for satellite based intelligence. We've got some impressive satellites up there already watching "places of interest" around the world. You want them to just take stills? Or to throw away that data when they're done with it? Of course not, that would be an ineffectual intelligence mechanism (god forbid). I'm afraid this technology is inevitable. In fact, I'd be very surprised if they're not already doing it to some extent.
It seems unlikely that MS really screwed up this badly. Even given unfettered access to the key validation, it's trivial to construct a scheme wherein the odds of coming up with even a single valid key are essentially zero. If the scheme includes additional hashing to increase the work required plus a large enough key space, you're simply not going to find one.
That's assuming they're stupid. I always figured the fact that the NSA finances more quantum computing research than anyone else was proof positive that they already built one:)
Well, I could pull the "I've done more for this country card..." but I suppose that would be a dick thing to do.
Your problem and probably not coincidentally, most republicans' problem, is that you think winning the battle means winning the war. If the people don't trust their government then winning the "war on terror" or the "war in iraq" are both immaterial.
This is like arguing that because the president of Paraguay read the New York Times he caused the diminishing of America in the world stage. It goes something like this: The Administration does something stupid -> The New York Times reports on it -> The rest of the world reads it -> America diminishes. You look at this and decide that the NYT's reporting led to the diminishing? You should run for congress.
I won't argue that damage isn't sometimes done by organizations like the New York Times. However, you need to understand that we pay a price for these freedoms. It is not always the case that just because some degree of damage is done, it implies the Times were wrong to publish! Take it from someone who has worked in the domain of federal government his entire life: Usually the damage is not as grave as the government would make it out to be. More often than not I say air on the side of caution with respect to civil liberties. It is insufficient to say that this or that is damaging to national security. The second you start censoring certain things, rest assured someone will abuse that. It goes without saying.
Do I think ex-employees of areas like the White House need to have their publications reviewed? Eh, I suppose so. But ultimately, if the government is doing something wrong and the only way the public finds out about it is through a newspaper, I say power to that newspaper.
The problem here is not that the White House censored something. The problem is that they censored something that the CIA didn't. Typically it's the other way around with the CIA having to explain to other organizations (often the White House) that something needs to be censored (don't worry about why, we'll explain later) and frankly, they're usually right. If the CIA lets something go by, barring a massive screw up on their part (yeah, I know, I know), it means it doesn't contain anything that's going to cause harm to national security. So, is this politics? Uh, yeah.
The big "secret" behind this whole thing is a "private network of servers" that use "the latest in firewall technology". No, you're right, no subpoena could get through that.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, right? Even if there was, Microsoft doesn't seem to be interested in keeping it that way. With the "advent" of Vista and whatever relational-style FS they might try to forcably upgrade us to in the future, what are the odds of the prototypical modern journaling, etc FS being shared across the two? My guess is you're stuck with ext on linux and NTFS or whatever else on Windows. Of course, you could run NTFS on Linux if you've got two big brass ones.
Well, Virgin is looking at space tourism but really the technology these companies are pioneering is the key. The whole point of scaled composites is that they craft an entire aircraft on a CNC machine. Pretty impressive stuff if you ask me. This, along with other cheep launch vehicles, etc could help reinvigorate space travel. What's NASA working on? - A moon base - Building a space station - Supporting the space shuttle with pointless missions - Taking pictures of deep space With the possible exception of the last one, what is the point of any of this? Anyone?
Besides the obvious tragedy of human loss, I hope this doesn't also sway them from continuing. With NASA spending money on colonizing the moon, guys like this may be our only chance for the future of interesting and pioneering science.
Well, speaking as an electrical engineer, power isn't not the problem. I think it's pretty well understood that given unlimited power you can do almost whatever you want in a system. The AI will come along in time but without power it's all a moot point. Just like launch vehicles, electric cars and pretty much anything useful, the problem is that as the power/fuel requirements go up, so does the need for lift, capacity, etc. This in turn, of course, causes your power requirements to go up again in a vicious cycle. Again, you're right about AI. However, as there is no sign of "nuclear batteries" or "mr. fusion" being that practical any time soon, this may be the next best thing. Or maybe even better.
I was wondering...why don't the cells get "blacker" in color the more efficient they are? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't higher efficiency imply more light is getting absorbed? Or does it simply mean that more light is getting converted to power?
At least he could admit it. There are probably plenty of people who don't really understand what a web site is other than as some page they can browse to.
Shouldn't the title read anti-censorship proposal?
Yeah, the outside of those building are sensitive (maybe not classified but that doesn't really matter). There's no difference between the security posture of a nuclear silo and war plans. They don't have those signs up because they're worried about you photographing the building, they have signs up because they're worried about you doing recon on the security detail. But then, that's sort of self-evident, isn't it?
Right, but this is a totally unrealistic view of the world. If government buildings are public places, you should be able to photograph those to, right? You should be able to photograph the invasion plans for Normandy, right? I'm as afraid of the slippery slope of censorship as the next person but surely the answer (as usual) is actually somewhere in the middle.
sounds like some meetings i've been in
They're probably going to want to put some protection on those drives to make sure the movies are only show in the theater they were sent to. The theater can share with a friend theater but only on a limited basis. There's some indication that the theaters may be able to share wirelessly at some point but that doesn't really seem to work right now. A theater's right to show the film can be revoked at any time but it doesn't really matter since a major outlet already left the key in the clear.
I mean, say what you will about big brother but this is the next logical step for satellite based intelligence. We've got some impressive satellites up there already watching "places of interest" around the world. You want them to just take stills? Or to throw away that data when they're done with it? Of course not, that would be an ineffectual intelligence mechanism (god forbid). I'm afraid this technology is inevitable. In fact, I'd be very surprised if they're not already doing it to some extent.
It seems unlikely that MS really screwed up this badly. Even given unfettered access to the key validation, it's trivial to construct a scheme wherein the odds of coming up with even a single valid key are essentially zero. If the scheme includes additional hashing to increase the work required plus a large enough key space, you're simply not going to find one.
That's assuming they're stupid. I always figured the fact that the NSA finances more quantum computing research than anyone else was proof positive that they already built one :)
what's a picture worth now? I can't keep track...
Well, I could pull the "I've done more for this country card..." but I suppose that would be a dick thing to do. Your problem and probably not coincidentally, most republicans' problem, is that you think winning the battle means winning the war. If the people don't trust their government then winning the "war on terror" or the "war in iraq" are both immaterial.
This is like arguing that because the president of Paraguay read the New York Times he caused the diminishing of America in the world stage. It goes something like this: The Administration does something stupid -> The New York Times reports on it -> The rest of the world reads it -> America diminishes. You look at this and decide that the NYT's reporting led to the diminishing? You should run for congress.
I won't argue that damage isn't sometimes done by organizations like the New York Times. However, you need to understand that we pay a price for these freedoms. It is not always the case that just because some degree of damage is done, it implies the Times were wrong to publish! Take it from someone who has worked in the domain of federal government his entire life: Usually the damage is not as grave as the government would make it out to be. More often than not I say air on the side of caution with respect to civil liberties. It is insufficient to say that this or that is damaging to national security. The second you start censoring certain things, rest assured someone will abuse that. It goes without saying. Do I think ex-employees of areas like the White House need to have their publications reviewed? Eh, I suppose so. But ultimately, if the government is doing something wrong and the only way the public finds out about it is through a newspaper, I say power to that newspaper.
The problem here is not that the White House censored something. The problem is that they censored something that the CIA didn't. Typically it's the other way around with the CIA having to explain to other organizations (often the White House) that something needs to be censored (don't worry about why, we'll explain later) and frankly, they're usually right. If the CIA lets something go by, barring a massive screw up on their part (yeah, I know, I know), it means it doesn't contain anything that's going to cause harm to national security. So, is this politics? Uh, yeah.
Too bad the gravity gun will suck.
Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical. Now, if there was a way to transmit my chocolate, that would be something.
No, no, it's fine. You just need to cross compile with ARCH=4004; OPTIMIZE_FOR_CPU=4004; STRIP_EVERYTHING_EXCEPT_RESET_INCLUDING_THE_KERNEL =true.
you have twenty seconds to comply
I will drop my intimidating shout...
The big "secret" behind this whole thing is a "private network of servers" that use "the latest in firewall technology". No, you're right, no subpoena could get through that.