The plant where my dad works at has a 200 gallon pool where the waste is stored that what they have from 75 years of running the plant...
Bart Simpson, is this you? On a side note, as far as I am aware the world-oldest nuclear power plant became operational in 1956. Unless he is working in a military nuclear plant, but then they are actually using the waste for the bombs (or did I miss here something?).
Here's a crazy idea: how about nuclear power? Oh, that's right, the word "nuclear" is too super-scary for the science-based environmentalists. Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else.
Nuclear energy is better for the environment than: Wind? Solar photovoltaics? Solar thermal? Hydroelectric?
Or do you mean: petrol and coal, when you said "anything else"?
What I liked most in Neuromancer, is the use of figures, such as ice as a firewall, and the hero hacking and melting through it to access the protected part. I could easily imagine this in a movie...
The Web page (HTML, Javascript code,...) should not be able to detect such differences and be able to report them back home; it's OK to tell the browser how to render visited links, but not to get the feedback by the browser how it rendered which links.
So say I make my:visited links twice as tall as my regular links. Are you saying JavaScript shouldn't be able to read the height of the element? That would break all scripts that position anything. Once I can read it with JavaScript, I can always send it back home (e.g., via AJAX, add an image or iframe with a magic URL the browser will load, . ..).
You are completely right.
The only way I see to fix this would be to sharply limit the properties that can be set based on:visited, to things like color and background-image; fetch background images for:visited links even if they aren't visited and the image won't be used; and lie to script when it asks about the color of a visited link (by pretending it's not visited in all cases). You can't even allow things like font-weight to be set: anything that affects sizes is going to be impossible to hide from script.
Good idea making:visited very restricted.
Or you could, you know, not worry that random sites can figure out that omg you visit Slashdot (very inefficiently, by the way). That's the tactic I'm taking, personally.
Here, I do not agere at all. This is a privacy issue. And a privacy issue can become very fast a security issue (phishing). And, even if is not phishing, I do not want/. or any other page to let find out what I looked at before. Of course, for tracking sites this is a very cool possibility to get more information from you (and to earn more dollars with this information). Your tactic may work for you, but for most users it's a privacy nightmare. And you don't need to be paranoiac...
Because that's how this vulnerability works. It doesn't really sniff your browser history - as such - what it does it it has a huge page full of popular websites, displays them as links (invisible) and sees which links change colour. There's no easy workaround that will both allow you to have a history, and allow web pages to display something different (e.g. link colour / style) for pages that you have visited already.
The Web page (HTML, Javascript code,...) should not be able to detect such differences and be able to report them back home; it's OK to tell the browser how to render visited links, but not to get the feedback by the browser how it rendered which links. The feedback is actually breaking the sandbox principle.
I actually think that the current direction to "the browser is the OS (or even worse, the Flash player in your browser is the OS)" is a security nightmare.
Any customer in the EU is free to purchase from UK retailers.
That is a good option for movies and games, that usually suffer from translation, but I prefer having my operating system speak to me in German.
That's the last what I would want: A keyboard and OS in German or French -- programming is a nightmare with those. Well, even worse are UK keyboards, you just think that you have a "normal" keyboard and OS, but then...
Interestingly enough, when the dollar was strong against the Euro (e.g. 1 Euro = 0.8 US$), we did not have the reverse effect. At that time in Europe, Prices of goods from the US were just increased.
Go ahead, tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g.
Why would anyone care what is interesting or not? The purpose of space flight is gain the ability to colonize (as in moving people out there) space. All we do we do for survival, and colonizing space is vital for survival. That is why we need manned space flight.
While I would agree that it's really cool and interesting to go 0g and to visit other planets, I simply do not buy the colonization-for-survival crap. If we want to survive as a species we should rather start to change our lives to live sustainable (which would probably not include space travel and certainly not include commercial air flights). Now, as a (now living) individual I give a shit about our the ability to survive of our species and say: "Yarr, le'ts go on the account. Let's leave behind 'ose landlubbers!"
Music, video, games, etc. are digital information that required a great deal of labor to create.
Indeed they are. That's why it's so foolish to do all that labor for free and then pray that you can recoup your production costs by selling copies, especially when you know anyone can cut you out of the loop by making their own copies at home. The creation is the valuable part, not the copying.
Thats' why you typically grant a license to use the software and do not sell it (unless you have developed the software only for this customer). However music os not software - and the last time I looked on a CD there was no license attached. Note: Not all digital "goods" are equal.
So, you're in the inconvenient situation to not have a VoD provider that can deliver the movie as stream (to your TV - or STB). This is actually the best option, provided that the VoD provider has a big archive and also new movies.
Fortunately for me, I have a great IPTV provider with fair pricing. Unfortunately for me, I am based in France (Europe), and the choice of (US) series is rather limited and mostly seasons behind what you can download. Supply of movies, at the other end, is OK.
You're probably thinking about the decision the Landesgericht Hamburg published on 11/12/2008 (http://www.telemedicus.info/article/1304-LG-Hamburg-bestaetigt-Wirkungslosigkeit-von-DNS-Sperren.html). The owners of a video rental service sued an ISP over not blocking access web sites providing unauthorized video downloads. This decision is highly problematic because it claims that if an effective way to block websites existed, the ISP would have to block the pages. You should also be aware that the new law isn't limited to DNS blocking. That's just the minimum that ISPs have to implement for now.
Yes, you are right - with everything. First there is already a court decision that only freed an ISP to block a certain content, because it would impose too much of a burden to the ISP. Once the infrastructure exist, the burden is minimal - and as far as I understood the law, such a court decision would NOT be anyhow affected by the law. Second, i was silly to always say how easy it is to circumvent DNS redirections. It's not the point, and ISPs are free to implement "better" blocking mechanisms (and probably will be forced to, if too many users change their DNS entries).
Looks to me as a private war between roommates, which went out of control and then to the police. Interesting that the police cared enough to seize one computer, but probably just to calm down this war a bit. Why should they actually care too much about the other stuff? And what interest may the police have to keep the laptop for a longer time?
While I fully second your opinion that MS should be honored to remove the IE from Windows 7 and therefore create more choice, I would say the the EC should continue its antitrust case until: - this is officially communicated by MS, and - the antitrust committee decides that only the inclusion of the IE in Windows was the reason for the antitrust case. Forcing MS to present other (competing) browsers at installation time would be completely wrong, already because somebody would need to make that choice of browsers and that somebody should neither be MS nor the EC, but only the customer and maybe the OEM.
That Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were completely different nuclear plants was not the point: The point was that Chernobyl exploded and caused many casualties and a highly contaminated environment, while Three Mile Island had luck.
The differences in the plants seems to make a big difference. It seems one was designed to reduce what would happen if something went wrong, and the other not so much. Seems misleading to overlook that, wouldn't you agree?
I agree, if you could agree that TMI had the potential for disaster. And this is regardless whether you compare it to Chernobyl or not.
Slashdot Mirror
But that someone should be distributed, i.e. a group instead of a single entity
Why?
And, more importantly, how?
The plant where my dad works at has a 200 gallon pool where the waste is stored that what they have from 75 years of running the plant...
Bart Simpson, is this you? On a side note, as far as I am aware the world-oldest nuclear power plant became operational in 1956. Unless he is working in a military nuclear plant, but then they are actually using the waste for the bombs (or did I miss here something?).
Here's a crazy idea: how about nuclear power? Oh, that's right, the word "nuclear" is too super-scary for the science-based environmentalists. Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else.
Nuclear energy is better for the environment than: Wind? Solar photovoltaics? Solar thermal? Hydroelectric?
Or do you mean: petrol and coal, when you said "anything else"?
Yes, or at least require an acknowledgment or signature page that is sent over a different network; e.g. fax, phone, sms.
ICE is "intrusional COUNTER electronics".
True. Nevertheless, one ring of the defending system is virtual ice in the book.
Thanks for reminding me about all the rest - I only recalled a very angry and mean dog as one of the inner defense rings.
What I liked most in Neuromancer, is the use of figures, such as ice as a firewall, and the hero hacking and melting through it to access the protected part. I could easily imagine this in a movie ...
The Web page (HTML, Javascript code, ...) should not be able to detect such differences and be able to report them back home; it's OK to tell the browser how to render visited links, but not to get the feedback by the browser how it rendered which links.
So say I make my :visited links twice as tall as my regular links. Are you saying JavaScript shouldn't be able to read the height of the element? That would break all scripts that position anything. Once I can read it with JavaScript, I can always send it back home (e.g., via AJAX, add an image or iframe with a magic URL the browser will load, . . .).
You are completely right.
The only way I see to fix this would be to sharply limit the properties that can be set based on :visited, to things like color and background-image; fetch background images for :visited links even if they aren't visited and the image won't be used; and lie to script when it asks about the color of a visited link (by pretending it's not visited in all cases). You can't even allow things like font-weight to be set: anything that affects sizes is going to be impossible to hide from script.
Good idea making :visited very restricted.
Or you could, you know, not worry that random sites can figure out that omg you visit Slashdot (very inefficiently, by the way). That's the tactic I'm taking, personally.
Here, I do not agere at all. This is a privacy issue. And a privacy issue can become very fast a security issue (phishing). And, even if is not phishing, I do not want /. or any other page to let find out what I looked at before. Of course, for tracking sites this is a very cool possibility to get more information from you (and to earn more dollars with this information). Your tactic may work for you, but for most users it's a privacy nightmare. And you don't need to be paranoiac ...
Because that's how this vulnerability works. It doesn't really sniff your browser history - as such - what it does it it has a huge page full of popular websites, displays them as links (invisible) and sees which links change colour. There's no easy workaround that will both allow you to have a history, and allow web pages to display something different (e.g. link colour / style) for pages that you have visited already.
The Web page (HTML, Javascript code, ...) should not be able to detect such differences and be able to report them back home; it's OK to tell the browser how to render visited links, but not to get the feedback by the browser how it rendered which links. The feedback is actually breaking the sandbox principle.
I actually think that the current direction to "the browser is the OS (or even worse, the Flash player in your browser is the OS)" is a security nightmare.
Any customer in the EU is free to purchase from UK retailers.
That is a good option for movies and games, that usually suffer from translation, but I prefer having my operating system speak to me in German.
That's the last what I would want: A keyboard and OS in German or French -- programming is a nightmare with those. Well, even worse are UK keyboards, you just think that you have a "normal" keyboard and OS, but then ...
So convert your Euros into Dollars, then buy it from the US at half the effective price. Surely it's worth the effort to save that much.
As somebody else pointed out: This is prohibited by the license.
Slightly OT: That's also (one big reason) why DVDs have region encoding ...
Since stupid rights managements mean they're only usable in one country.
Seconded.
Interestingly enough, when the dollar was strong against the Euro (e.g. 1 Euro = 0.8 US$), we did not have the reverse effect. At that time in Europe, Prices of goods from the US were just increased.
> To paraphrase Carl Sagan in "Pale Blue Dot", any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction.
To paraphrase Darwin: All species are doomed to extinction. (Otherwise there would be no biological evolution.)
Yeah, but it would be less cool than sending the Colonizator.
Go ahead, tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g.
Why would anyone care what is interesting or not? The purpose of space flight is gain the ability to colonize (as in moving people out there) space. All we do we do for survival, and colonizing space is vital for survival. That is why we need manned space flight.
While I would agree that it's really cool and interesting to go 0g and to visit other planets, I simply do not buy the colonization-for-survival crap. If we want to survive as a species we should rather start to change our lives to live sustainable (which would probably not include space travel and certainly not include commercial air flights). Now, as a (now living) individual I give a shit about our the ability to survive of our species and say: "Yarr, le'ts go on the account. Let's leave behind 'ose landlubbers!"
Absolutely!. We need to double our odds as fast as possible as a species.
May I ask why?
Or, did you stop refueling your car?
Music, video, games, etc. are digital information that required a great deal of labor to create.
Indeed they are. That's why it's so foolish to do all that labor for free and then pray that you can recoup your production costs by selling copies, especially when you know anyone can cut you out of the loop by making their own copies at home. The creation is the valuable part, not the copying.
Thats' why you typically grant a license to use the software and do not sell it (unless you have developed the software only for this customer). However music os not software - and the last time I looked on a CD there was no license attached. Note: Not all digital "goods" are equal.
So, you're in the inconvenient situation to not have a VoD provider that can deliver the movie as stream (to your TV - or STB). This is actually the best option, provided that the VoD provider has a big archive and also new movies.
Fortunately for me, I have a great IPTV provider with fair pricing. Unfortunately for me, I am based in France (Europe), and the choice of (US) series is rather limited and mostly seasons behind what you can download. Supply of movies, at the other end, is OK.
You're probably thinking about the decision the Landesgericht Hamburg published on 11/12/2008 (http://www.telemedicus.info/article/1304-LG-Hamburg-bestaetigt-Wirkungslosigkeit-von-DNS-Sperren.html). The owners of a video rental service sued an ISP over not blocking access web sites providing unauthorized video downloads. This decision is highly problematic because it claims that if an effective way to block websites existed, the ISP would have to block the pages. You should also be aware that the new law isn't limited to DNS blocking. That's just the minimum that ISPs have to implement for now.
Yes, you are right - with everything. First there is already a court decision that only freed an ISP to block a certain content, because it would impose too much of a burden to the ISP. Once the infrastructure exist, the burden is minimal - and as far as I understood the law, such a court decision would NOT be anyhow affected by the law. Second, i was silly to always say how easy it is to circumvent DNS redirections. It's not the point, and ISPs are free to implement "better" blocking mechanisms (and probably will be forced to, if too many users change their DNS entries).
[...], Picasso all died more or less penniless,
How wrong! Picasso was probably one of the commercially most successful artists. His fortune has been estimated at $50m.
Looks to me as a private war between roommates, which went out of control and then to the police. Interesting that the police cared enough to seize one computer, but probably just to calm down this war a bit. Why should they actually care too much about the other stuff? And what interest may the police have to keep the laptop for a longer time?
While I fully second your opinion that MS should be honored to remove the IE from Windows 7 and therefore create more choice, I would say the the EC should continue its antitrust case until:
- this is officially communicated by MS, and
- the antitrust committee decides that only the inclusion of the IE in Windows was the reason for the antitrust case.
Forcing MS to present other (competing) browsers at installation time would be completely wrong, already because somebody would need to make that choice of browsers and that somebody should neither be MS nor the EC, but only the customer and maybe the OEM.
Lem is not the just "arguably the greatest non-English SF writer" he is arguably the greatest SF writer of the 20th century, in any language.
Seconded.
The differences in the plants seems to make a big difference. It seems one was designed to reduce what would happen if something went wrong, and the other not so much. Seems misleading to overlook that, wouldn't you agree?
I agree, if you could agree that TMI had the potential for disaster. And this is regardless whether you compare it to Chernobyl or not.