Adam Osborne once said that we'd have paperless offices when we had paperless bathrooms. That your organization has found a way to stunt paperwork flow is admirable. How are your bathrooms?
There's another way of looking at things, called the US 10th Amendment. Viz:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Recently, SCOTUS (who otherwise can be pretty strange), has bent in this direction. So maybe OR and WA might survive this, and the Swiss's idea of assisted suicide and such will be seen as visionary. At some point, I intend to take advantage of such things personally.
I did a lot of work on the Altos machines; the 16550 and predecessor UARTs and USARTs are easy to code for. But coding for them isn't necessary: the guts to use them are in Xenix. If there's a standard tty jack left over from the con: then just blow it all out the tty port or map it as stdout.
The commands in Xenix are simple. Finding another machine with a nice capture program ought to be easy, if one can find a machine with a serial port. I had to look for a few minutes to actually find one.
Then there's the matter of making a cable for X-on/X-off... and the plucky archivist can proceed.
Probably a 16550 USART; capable of pretty fast speeds. Use it as a tty(x) device and just blow the file system through it. Ther are lots of UUCP docs that work with Xenix, and it supported UUCP nicely.UUCP is easy to use... comparatively speaking.
That's what I'm wondering. Does randomized address still occur on VPC7's competitors? And if VPC is this way, then does Hyper-V thwart host address randomization, and so on? What's the difference in architecture that allows VPC to thwart this, and others go merrily on their way-- with whatever memory ring permitting the randomization of kernel access? Hmmmmm.
You said, "Seal it." That's difference number one. Encryption is sealing it.
Difference number two, given not-being-sealed is that the medium itself is unsealed, and public. There is no truck. There are wires, and mailboxes in applications. That's the Eleventh's thinking.
The third party removes the public nexus (as they perceive it) of the ISP-hosted mailbox. There, they mistakenly believe, it's all fair game (which we know is not our intention).
Are they incorrect in these assumptions? I believe so. Will it go to SCOTUS? They're not very bright either.
We talk. We talk across a crowded room. We wave at each other. We speak in American Sign to each other. These are not privileged communications, is what the court is saying.
If we're in my office, and the windows are closed, then we're privileged and a warrant is needed to record/tap our conversation. If we're on a subway, then it's public. If we're in your car, it's dicey, but we're likely covered.
You cannot assume nor presume transitive math. This is law, sadly. Boolean logic doesn't likely apply, either.
Encryption proves intent to keep conversations private between utterer and recipient, and vice-versa when their roles reverse.
But IANAL, and certainly not on the bench of the 11thUSCoA. And if I were, the outcome would be different.
You're not leaving it up on your porch. It's left the porch and has gone across town. This is their argument.
I don't agree with the argument, I just am trying to analogize their thinking and why end to end encryption thwarts their argument if you use a non-public hosting method.
Should the Eleventh be fired? Yes, for this and other reasons.
If you shout across a room filled with crowded people, to someone else, you'll be heard by some of them. That communication wasn't private. And so, if you use the auspices of a public provider and make no effort to encrypt or cover the conversation, it's fair game.
If you want 4th amendment protection, this means: you get your own domain, host it yourself, make every attempt to retain privacy and use encryption, and you could expect privacy and 4th amendment protection.
Honestly, if you're using any provider that doesn't have https, ssl, or another (end-to-end) email chain of communications that's encrypted, then you're communications are bare naked to the world anyway.
The patents for tip-and-ring landlines expired long ago. There was a fight, even then.
According TFA, this also about GSM, UTMS, and WiFI-- and Nokia has intellectual property claims in all three; and those are what the litigation against Apple is all about.
Let's see: cells and wireless. No, not about phones. Bridging GSM lines for data... no, not about phones. WiFi switch-off.... no, not about phones again.
Not about software either. Hmmmm.
This doesn't speak to Bilski, this doesn't have anything to do with that. This, notwithstanding to the madness of patents in general.
Should we dress as butlers, and serve it to you on a silver platter, sir?
If you want to know more, why not contact the company?
And while you've used that vast intelligence of yours to raise the security 'buzzword', why don't you find out more about the topic? There's this little search engine called google. You could find information out really easy that way! Maybe the buzzwords would make sense, and you'd find out more about the implications of RFID technology as it applies to everyone! Yay!
I had no difficulities going thru major cities in Germany this month, and getting free WiFi. The nicest place was the Corkokian Irish Bar south of the Dom in Cologne. Drink Guinness (or coffee) whilst getting blisteringly fast 802.11n. Free.
Small towns might not have it, and most APs actually have minimal security on them. Not that we want to crack that. Seriously, there's sufficient free WiFi to prevent getting soaked tethering to some horrible data plan. Save yourself the Euros and wing it. Use WireShark, iStumbler, or your favorite wetted-finger-in-the-air AP spotter.
And each twit that licenses them, sells justice down the tubes. One org needs to fight representatively for all. I'd donate lots of money to that organization. Extortion is a hideous crime.
It's a blowhard's way of stanching competition with bogus citations. Ubuntu doesn't have the enterprise penetration of any of the community versions of SUSE or Red Hat. Novell's stupid, and hampered by the FOSS community's perception that they're a Microsoft sell-out because of their license agreement with Microsoft.
Still, the openSUSE community thrives. It's Novell's legacy problems (hello Eric Schmidt!) and their incapability of appealing to enterprise systems designers that they're in the undervalued column. Microsoft won't buy them. They'll get broken into pieces, and sold off that way. My guess: to Oracle, whose Linux version languishes. At least Oracle knows how to excite developers.
There's also profit in being valliant. And there are some tasty assets out there to suck away from an ostensibly terminal patient.
Oh, wait-- we're all terminal, aren't we?
Medical ethicisists have been wrestling with this question since Plato. It boils down to the patientl and their family/friends, and their desires. I've carried the pall of many family members, friends, colleagues. Some believed they needed to anything possible and feared death, others were different in their grace and accepted what's inevitable for all of us. I hope I have their courage and style when I go.... and not the Hunter S Thompson method.
The next problem is that large RAID 0 arrays will suffer from word-width. The reason that ATA and SCSI buses were parallel buses had to do with chip fanout and cable length (slew rate). When SATA and SAS arrived, they use single fast clocks to frame out data and re-lengthen the cable by convenience.
When you get a bunch of drives that can now be accessed faster than the interface IO rate, the interface IO rate has to change and that starts putting RAID controller technology into the same realm of difficulty (and cost, and dearth of chipsets) as 10GBE.
So, when you're looking at delicious 4-core and up CPUs, and several of them in a server can, all hungry for data, the disk interface is going to have to climb in clock to feed those hungry CPUs (and likely virtual machines on top of them).
The SSD advantage is a nice problem to have, and their data rates will continue to tax host-bus-adapter technology for a while. Then FC switches and other key delivery components will have to catch-up, too.
While it might take an act of Parliament to change that law, the law seems to be akin to mandating that the wind must travel west to east, only.
The Internet is a meta-national repository. Hell, we can't even get people to respect robots.txt..... so if somebody wants to snapshot you, they'll do it. It is the very nature of the web that this can be done, should be done, or can be laughably avoided: user choice. If they want to put it in an archive, there's little to prevent it. Worse, a challenge not to do so means that there's motivation to immediately start to do so, and put it into a torrent for all to see. Not that I have that motivation, rather it's the
1) women have no balls, so kicking them in a non-existent part of their anatomy is gruesomely stupid; how droll for the poster to think in this way at all-- this person is likely incurable of this level of sexism. 2) the proposed puppy icons are apologies for the poster's poor and inarticulate error messages; say something in actual genuine non-geek speak to render actual information transfer between application and user when things aren't working. One can assume very little about the training level of the person being supported. 3) no one RTFMs, so start from there.... and people will indeed read maps of where they might be and want to go within an application 4) help systems are often incapable of English language heuristic/contextual answers that lead to problem solving by the user. Some coders believe that it's more important to make their user community dependent on them and therefore guarantee a job for the life cycle of the app than to think through adapting Murphy's Law to their apps.
And now that I've poured kerosene on the floor, feel free to ignite it by modding me flamebait. Hating your users gets you nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bet that nefarious Google was involved. Trying to make amends.
Adam Osborne once said that we'd have paperless offices when we had paperless bathrooms. That your organization has found a way to stunt paperwork flow is admirable. How are your bathrooms?
God bless the breakout box and little jumper cables. Amen.
Uh, no.
There's another way of looking at things, called the US 10th Amendment. Viz:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Recently, SCOTUS (who otherwise can be pretty strange), has bent in this direction. So maybe OR and WA might survive this, and the Swiss's idea of assisted suicide and such will be seen as visionary. At some point, I intend to take advantage of such things personally.
I did a lot of work on the Altos machines; the 16550 and predecessor UARTs and USARTs are easy to code for. But coding for them isn't necessary: the guts to use them are in Xenix. If there's a standard tty jack left over from the con: then just blow it all out the tty port or map it as stdout.
The commands in Xenix are simple. Finding another machine with a nice capture program ought to be easy, if one can find a machine with a serial port. I had to look for a few minutes to actually find one.
Then there's the matter of making a cable for X-on/X-off... and the plucky archivist can proceed.
Probably a 16550 USART; capable of pretty fast speeds. Use it as a tty(x) device and just blow the file system through it. Ther are lots of UUCP docs that work with Xenix, and it supported UUCP nicely.UUCP is easy to use... comparatively speaking.
While you and I would agree, the Eleventh does not.
However, an EOF doesn't do anything but put a period at the end of the transmission. It's not private. MIME isn't private.
PGP is private. Blowfish is private. Even a crappy hash is private. This is their thinking.
That's what I'm wondering. Does randomized address still occur on VPC7's competitors? And if VPC is this way, then does Hyper-V thwart host address randomization, and so on? What's the difference in architecture that allows VPC to thwart this, and others go merrily on their way-- with whatever memory ring permitting the randomization of kernel access? Hmmmmm.
Makes one wonder if the disabling of these crack-thwarting mechanisms are also killed in other desktop hypervisors. Bad news.
You said, "Seal it." That's difference number one. Encryption is sealing it.
Difference number two, given not-being-sealed is that the medium itself is unsealed, and public. There is no truck. There are wires, and mailboxes in applications. That's the Eleventh's thinking.
The third party removes the public nexus (as they perceive it) of the ISP-hosted mailbox. There, they mistakenly believe, it's all fair game (which we know is not our intention).
Are they incorrect in these assumptions? I believe so. Will it go to SCOTUS? They're not very bright either.
Uh, no.
We talk. We talk across a crowded room. We wave at each other. We speak in American Sign to each other. These are not privileged communications, is what the court is saying.
If we're in my office, and the windows are closed, then we're privileged and a warrant is needed to record/tap our conversation. If we're on a subway, then it's public. If we're in your car, it's dicey, but we're likely covered.
You cannot assume nor presume transitive math. This is law, sadly. Boolean logic doesn't likely apply, either.
Encryption proves intent to keep conversations private between utterer and recipient, and vice-versa when their roles reverse.
But IANAL, and certainly not on the bench of the 11thUSCoA. And if I were, the outcome would be different.
I agree with you completely, except:
You're not leaving it up on your porch. It's left the porch and has gone across town. This is their argument.
I don't agree with the argument, I just am trying to analogize their thinking and why end to end encryption thwarts their argument if you use a non-public hosting method.
Should the Eleventh be fired? Yes, for this and other reasons.
If you shout across a room filled with crowded people, to someone else, you'll be heard by some of them. That communication wasn't private. And so, if you use the auspices of a public provider and make no effort to encrypt or cover the conversation, it's fair game.
If you want 4th amendment protection, this means: you get your own domain, host it yourself, make every attempt to retain privacy and use encryption, and you could expect privacy and 4th amendment protection.
Honestly, if you're using any provider that doesn't have https, ssl, or another (end-to-end) email chain of communications that's encrypted, then you're communications are bare naked to the world anyway.
The patents for tip-and-ring landlines expired long ago. There was a fight, even then.
According TFA, this also about GSM, UTMS, and WiFI-- and Nokia has intellectual property claims in all three; and those are what the litigation against Apple is all about.
Let's see: cells and wireless. No, not about phones. Bridging GSM lines for data... no, not about phones. WiFi switch-off.... no, not about phones again.
Not about software either. Hmmmm.
This doesn't speak to Bilski, this doesn't have anything to do with that. This, notwithstanding to the madness of patents in general.
Datasheet without buzzwords.....
Should we dress as butlers, and serve it to you on a silver platter, sir?
If you want to know more, why not contact the company?
And while you've used that vast intelligence of yours to raise the security 'buzzword', why don't you find out more about the topic? There's this little search engine called google. You could find information out really easy that way! Maybe the buzzwords would make sense, and you'd find out more about the implications of RFID technology as it applies to everyone! Yay!
>>I had excellent insurance, yet they won't cover a dime.
There. Fixed that for you.
A voice of informative reason in a sea of discord. Mod parent up, please.
Uh, no.
I had no difficulities going thru major cities in Germany this month, and getting free WiFi. The nicest place was the Corkokian Irish Bar south of the Dom in Cologne. Drink Guinness (or coffee) whilst getting blisteringly fast 802.11n. Free.
Small towns might not have it, and most APs actually have minimal security on them. Not that we want to crack that. Seriously, there's sufficient free WiFi to prevent getting soaked tethering to some horrible data plan. Save yourself the Euros and wing it. Use WireShark, iStumbler, or your favorite wetted-finger-in-the-air AP spotter.
And each twit that licenses them, sells justice down the tubes. One org needs to fight representatively for all. I'd donate lots of money to that organization. Extortion is a hideous crime.
You'd own both the Unix and BSD branches..... well, certain IP components of them. A portfolio that could embarrass both Ballmer and Jobs.
Except that it's not a patent minefield.
It's a blowhard's way of stanching competition with bogus citations. Ubuntu doesn't have the enterprise penetration of any of the community versions of SUSE or Red Hat. Novell's stupid, and hampered by the FOSS community's perception that they're a Microsoft sell-out because of their license agreement with Microsoft.
Still, the openSUSE community thrives. It's Novell's legacy problems (hello Eric Schmidt!) and their incapability of appealing to enterprise systems designers that they're in the undervalued column. Microsoft won't buy them. They'll get broken into pieces, and sold off that way. My guess: to Oracle, whose Linux version languishes. At least Oracle knows how to excite developers.
There's also profit in being valliant. And there are some tasty assets out there to suck away from an ostensibly terminal patient.
Oh, wait-- we're all terminal, aren't we?
Medical ethicisists have been wrestling with this question since Plato. It boils down to the patientl and their family/friends, and their desires. I've carried the pall of many family members, friends, colleagues. Some believed they needed to anything possible and feared death, others were different in their grace and accepted what's inevitable for all of us. I hope I have their courage and style when I go.... and not the Hunter S Thompson method.
The next problem is that large RAID 0 arrays will suffer from word-width. The reason that ATA and SCSI buses were parallel buses had to do with chip fanout and cable length (slew rate). When SATA and SAS arrived, they use single fast clocks to frame out data and re-lengthen the cable by convenience.
When you get a bunch of drives that can now be accessed faster than the interface IO rate, the interface IO rate has to change and that starts putting RAID controller technology into the same realm of difficulty (and cost, and dearth of chipsets) as 10GBE.
So, when you're looking at delicious 4-core and up CPUs, and several of them in a server can, all hungry for data, the disk interface is going to have to climb in clock to feed those hungry CPUs (and likely virtual machines on top of them).
The SSD advantage is a nice problem to have, and their data rates will continue to tax host-bus-adapter technology for a while. Then FC switches and other key delivery components will have to catch-up, too.
While it might take an act of Parliament to change that law, the law seems to be akin to mandating that the wind must travel west to east, only.
The Internet is a meta-national repository. Hell, we can't even get people to respect robots.txt..... so if somebody wants to snapshot you, they'll do it. It is the very nature of the web that this can be done, should be done, or can be laughably avoided: user choice. If they want to put it in an archive, there's little to prevent it. Worse, a challenge not to do so means that there's motivation to immediately start to do so, and put it into a torrent for all to see. Not that I have that motivation, rather it's the
Will of the Web! (tm)
You figured out part of the problem.
1) women have no balls, so kicking them in a non-existent part of their anatomy is gruesomely stupid; how droll for the poster to think in this way at all-- this person is likely incurable of this level of sexism.
2) the proposed puppy icons are apologies for the poster's poor and inarticulate error messages; say something in actual genuine non-geek speak to render actual information transfer between application and user when things aren't working. One can assume very little about the training level of the person being supported.
3) no one RTFMs, so start from there.... and people will indeed read maps of where they might be and want to go within an application
4) help systems are often incapable of English language heuristic/contextual answers that lead to problem solving by the user. Some coders believe that it's more important to make their user community dependent on them and therefore guarantee a job for the life cycle of the app than to think through adapting Murphy's Law to their apps.
And now that I've poured kerosene on the floor, feel free to ignite it by modding me flamebait. Hating your users gets you nowhere.