Most browsers still have a warning that cannot be bypassed whenever unencrypted content is linked on an encrypted page. The existence of this warning assumes that the end-users understand the basic HTML security model (laughable in the vast majority of cases) and that the server code is buggy and might allow secure data to be sent insecurely. This prevents caching of items on encrypted pages that really should be cacheable (most css, most images, most flash, most javascript). Using SSL despite the lack of caching reduces website performance and increases hosting costs (so that's not likely to happen except when the added security is worth the added cost and wait). IMHO there should be some kind of explicit unsecure-data-within-a-secure-page protocol (httpu://? httpp://) that prevents the browser warning but allows unsecured css/images/javascript/flash/etc. within secure HTML. This way, all those items could be cached at any point along the way (proxy servers, browser, etc.), and we could still provide warnings for buggy websites that unintentionally included content with http://./ A one-time warning similar to the "switching to secure!" warnings could be included for security-paranoid users, and a different icon for pages with this type of content could be used. Ideally, for those same paranoid users, there'd also be a way to quickly asses WHICH items on the page were insecure, like a button that turns on/off the display of either the secure or the insecure parts of the page.
In addition to what's already been pointed out about formal vs. informal specifications,
1. Running Linux on top of this is no more safe than running Linux directly on the hardware--it's Linux that crashes (though not very often!)
2. Running this on a CPU that has not been formally proven is nearly useless because only part of the system has been proven, which results in an overall system that is unproven.
I totally agree with your point, but your numbers leave something to be desired...a watt is a measure of energy per unit of time (which is why your electricity bill is in watt-hours). In terms of water, watts is equivalent to something like gallons per minute. So, 4500 terawatts per minute makes about as much sense as 4500 gallons per minute per minute, which only makes sense if you are talking about a CHANGE in the rate of energy output.
Being a scientist, I agree with you for the most part. It's just that there's just so much piss-poor science out there that jumps to wild conclusions with only evidence that the conclusion COULD BE correct instead rather than evidence that the conclusion IS correct. There are equally many silly religions that believe in things that can be scientifically shown to be false. These two facts lead each of those camps to attack the other with personal attacks rather than facts. You are correct that you don't have to believe that one of those is true, it's just that science has no other theories about the origin of a universe that supports life as we know it, so choosing not to believe one of those leaves you with either a belief in God, or NO belief about the origin of life. Are you suggesting another possibility that hasn't been mentioned, or just saying that we shouldn't believe anything until it's proven? Any investigation of truth has to begin with a belief in something (ie. form a hypothesis), right?
My religion happens to believe that spiritual beliefs should NOT be the result of blind belief in anyone else, in heresay, or in anything that cannot be experienced personally. It's not quite scientific, but it's very similar, and it more closely follows the scientific method than most "scientists" seem to these days, because they will blindly accept anything published without trying it out for themselves.
Many people believe that what you say is exactly true of their own religion as well. Science is merely God's way of allowing us to discover what he already knows. Science can never prove why anything happens either--it only comes up with new questions. So "evolution" created man? What or who created the conditions necessary for that evolution to occur? And what created that? And so on. Science has never answered why the universe is the way it is (ie. why life is possible, and why we are here) any better than religion has. It has only discovered a few of the mechanics. In order to truly believe that God does not exist, you must (according to current science) accept that one of the following is true:
1. There are multiple universes each with different values for physical constants 2. Every physical constant's value must differ in different regions of space 3. We just got incredibly, incredibly lucky
There are theories and math for each of these, but just like there is no evidence for God's existence, there is NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE for any of these conditions, making a belief in no god just as faith-based as a belief in God. It's just faith in something else.
This whole argument is the problem with education being run by the state. If the state doesn't like what you teach, you're not allowed to teach it. Whatever the state wants to be taught is fact and whatever they don't want taught is not. All you anti-religionists just wait--the state will eventually choose something you believe in to attack next. American History perhaps? The government doesn't care about what's true, only about what's good for them politically. To think otherwise is naive. To have them in control of education is lunacy.
Actually, depending on what you do to "combat global warming," the consequences may be enormous. If human-released carbon isn't an issue, spending money on carbon-fixing and carbon reduction ends up being a complete waste of resources that could have been used doing other more useful things (improving education, sanitation, food production, health care, etc.). The effect of this cannot be minimized because, although nobody talks about it, the cost will certainly be a significant percentage of the world's economy, and would disproportionately affect the poor (because they spend more of their money on energy than the rich). As a result of this fact, much of the proposed changes to combat global warming include redistributing wealth to the poor, which seems to be a popular idea these days, but which, as history has shown, always results in increased government control (ie. loss of freedom) and has never actually resulted in improving the lot of the poor, because giving them a handout without giving them skills to be productive only keeps them poor (and under government control). That particular issue is negated by the fact that we would be giving them money to compensate for artificially high energy prices, but the change in the nature of government that will result from such policies will be disastrous to society.
Have you ever thought about how hypocritical it is of Mr. Gore to fly all over the world, spewing millions of tons of CO2 from his private jet, to speak to people about how bad CO2 is? If you believe it's all human-caused, by all means, STOP EMITTING CO2 YOURSELF! If you don't practice what you preach, I for one will not listen to anything you say.
I've been using Snapstream BeyondTV for many years now (since 1.0). I LOVE it, but up until last month, there was no way to capture the encrypted QAM channels. Now I can, it just costs me $250 (Hauppauge HD-PVR) plus $8/month for a digital cable box +$11/month for any extra ones if I want to record more than one channel at a time. There was never a legal problem with recording that stuff, and now there isn't a technical problem--now it's simply a financial problem. They can't stop us from recording the content, so there's really no reason not to allow us to record it properly (ie. without taking the nice digital signal and converting it to analog and then back again).
Absolutely. If he has any aptitude for programming, GameMaker will bring it out and get him thinking like a programmer. The next step towards real development would probably be Flash. After that, most other mainstream languages will not be too hard.
on all networks including the MPAA's and the RIAA's. Seems like it would be highly discriminatory to put filtering on some networks and not on others. Of course, with these filters in place, the studios could not ever CREATE digital versions of their films/music to begin with. Their conclusion that this filtering would "solve" the "problem" is about as nonsensical as filtering their own networks. If they can't figure out a business model that works in the digital world, maybe they should just go back to film only distribution instead of trying to prevent legitimate use by their customers. I for one pay for my content, but I'm SICK of DRM. I will not use any content with DRM, and until they figure that out, they are spending a whole lot of money on a problem that cannot even theoretically be solved.
All research funding comes from somewhere. Where did the money for research that supports global warming come from? I'm sure that none of it came from companies with an interest in convincing people that global warming is real. Call me a cynic, but I think EVERYTHING needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
If the party trying to decrypt your message knows that your "random" data comes from a quasar, they could just monitor the quasar themselves and crack the data pretty quickly (faster than brute force). Cryptography relies on the random data being secret, and this isn't secret at all unless your trying to hide your conversation from someone whose planet can't view the quasar you're using.
We use mwave all the time. Their prices aren't always the absolute lowest, but they are fairly goot and they ship so fast that we almost always get stuff within 48 hours. They have good customer service too--not that you need it--we seem to get much less defective stuff from them than from other vendors. (No, I don't have any ties to them--except as a customer).
Some quick calculations show that the 1111111111 this is referring to is DECIMAL, not binary. The real party should have been the halfway point from 0 to 2^31, which would have been 13:37:04 on 10 Jan 2004.
OK. I solved my problem. Not exactly pleasant. It turns out that my BIOS wasn't the latest, even though my computer is only 2 months old. The latest BIOS solved the problem, and I didn't even lose any data! Given that they are expecting everyone to use automatic updates, seems like they should have done more testing to avoid situations like this. If I'd waited for the automatic update to install it, I'd have come in one morning and had a dead machine with no idea as to why. Not cool.
> SP2 crashed a lot of machines that were already exploited. Good. They were already broken.
It worked fine on all my home machines (3), and my tablet pc, but it crashed my main work machine, which was in perfect working order before the install. After installing, windows will not boot at all. Even safe mode hangs. The last file it lists is agp440.sys. After some searching it looks like many other people are having the same problem, and they all have newer Intel processors with hyperthreading, and nobody as yet has posted any kind of solution other than reinstalling windows from scratch. At least when you get a virus you can usually still use most of your system!
Slashdot Mirror
The outage started at 12:38 ET.
But can it seek out raw materials and make copies of itself? THAT would be cool! Welcome to our new nanosize robotic overlords!
Most browsers still have a warning that cannot be bypassed whenever unencrypted content is linked on an encrypted page. The existence of this warning assumes that the end-users understand the basic HTML security model (laughable in the vast majority of cases) and that the server code is buggy and might allow secure data to be sent insecurely. This prevents caching of items on encrypted pages that really should be cacheable (most css, most images, most flash, most javascript). Using SSL despite the lack of caching reduces website performance and increases hosting costs (so that's not likely to happen except when the added security is worth the added cost and wait). IMHO there should be some kind of explicit unsecure-data-within-a-secure-page protocol (httpu://? httpp://) that prevents the browser warning but allows unsecured css/images/javascript/flash/etc. within secure HTML. This way, all those items could be cached at any point along the way (proxy servers, browser, etc.), and we could still provide warnings for buggy websites that unintentionally included content with http://./ A one-time warning similar to the "switching to secure!" warnings could be included for security-paranoid users, and a different icon for pages with this type of content could be used. Ideally, for those same paranoid users, there'd also be a way to quickly asses WHICH items on the page were insecure, like a button that turns on/off the display of either the secure or the insecure parts of the page.
Ultrasonic...sounds like a good way to have your dog pee all over your laptop. No thanks!
In addition to what's already been pointed out about formal vs. informal specifications,
1. Running Linux on top of this is no more safe than running Linux directly on the hardware--it's Linux that crashes (though not very often!)
2. Running this on a CPU that has not been formally proven is nearly useless because only part of the system has been proven, which results in an overall system that is unproven.
I totally agree with your point, but your numbers leave something to be desired...a watt is a measure of energy per unit of time (which is why your electricity bill is in watt-hours). In terms of water, watts is equivalent to something like gallons per minute. So, 4500 terawatts per minute makes about as much sense as 4500 gallons per minute per minute, which only makes sense if you are talking about a CHANGE in the rate of energy output.
Being a scientist, I agree with you for the most part. It's just that there's just so much piss-poor science out there that jumps to wild conclusions with only evidence that the conclusion COULD BE correct instead rather than evidence that the conclusion IS correct. There are equally many silly religions that believe in things that can be scientifically shown to be false. These two facts lead each of those camps to attack the other with personal attacks rather than facts. You are correct that you don't have to believe that one of those is true, it's just that science has no other theories about the origin of a universe that supports life as we know it, so choosing not to believe one of those leaves you with either a belief in God, or NO belief about the origin of life. Are you suggesting another possibility that hasn't been mentioned, or just saying that we shouldn't believe anything until it's proven? Any investigation of truth has to begin with a belief in something (ie. form a hypothesis), right?
My religion happens to believe that spiritual beliefs should NOT be the result of blind belief in anyone else, in heresay, or in anything that cannot be experienced personally. It's not quite scientific, but it's very similar, and it more closely follows the scientific method than most "scientists" seem to these days, because they will blindly accept anything published without trying it out for themselves.
Many people believe that what you say is exactly true of their own religion as well. Science is merely God's way of allowing us to discover what he already knows. Science can never prove why anything happens either--it only comes up with new questions. So "evolution" created man? What or who created the conditions necessary for that evolution to occur? And what created that? And so on. Science has never answered why the universe is the way it is (ie. why life is possible, and why we are here) any better than religion has. It has only discovered a few of the mechanics. In order to truly believe that God does not exist, you must (according to current science) accept that one of the following is true:
1. There are multiple universes each with different values for physical constants
2. Every physical constant's value must differ in different regions of space
3. We just got incredibly, incredibly lucky
There are theories and math for each of these, but just like there is no evidence for God's existence, there is NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE for any of these conditions, making a belief in no god just as faith-based as a belief in God. It's just faith in something else.
This whole argument is the problem with education being run by the state. If the state doesn't like what you teach, you're not allowed to teach it. Whatever the state wants to be taught is fact and whatever they don't want taught is not. All you anti-religionists just wait--the state will eventually choose something you believe in to attack next. American History perhaps? The government doesn't care about what's true, only about what's good for them politically. To think otherwise is naive. To have them in control of education is lunacy.
Actually, depending on what you do to "combat global warming," the consequences may be enormous. If human-released carbon isn't an issue, spending money on carbon-fixing and carbon reduction ends up being a complete waste of resources that could have been used doing other more useful things (improving education, sanitation, food production, health care, etc.). The effect of this cannot be minimized because, although nobody talks about it, the cost will certainly be a significant percentage of the world's economy, and would disproportionately affect the poor (because they spend more of their money on energy than the rich). As a result of this fact, much of the proposed changes to combat global warming include redistributing wealth to the poor, which seems to be a popular idea these days, but which, as history has shown, always results in increased government control (ie. loss of freedom) and has never actually resulted in improving the lot of the poor, because giving them a handout without giving them skills to be productive only keeps them poor (and under government control). That particular issue is negated by the fact that we would be giving them money to compensate for artificially high energy prices, but the change in the nature of government that will result from such policies will be disastrous to society. Have you ever thought about how hypocritical it is of Mr. Gore to fly all over the world, spewing millions of tons of CO2 from his private jet, to speak to people about how bad CO2 is? If you believe it's all human-caused, by all means, STOP EMITTING CO2 YOURSELF! If you don't practice what you preach, I for one will not listen to anything you say.
It's amazing what passes for science these days!
I've been using Snapstream BeyondTV for many years now (since 1.0). I LOVE it, but up until last month, there was no way to capture the encrypted QAM channels. Now I can, it just costs me $250 (Hauppauge HD-PVR) plus $8/month for a digital cable box +$11/month for any extra ones if I want to record more than one channel at a time. There was never a legal problem with recording that stuff, and now there isn't a technical problem--now it's simply a financial problem. They can't stop us from recording the content, so there's really no reason not to allow us to record it properly (ie. without taking the nice digital signal and converting it to analog and then back again).
Absolutely. If he has any aptitude for programming, GameMaker will bring it out and get him thinking like a programmer. The next step towards real development would probably be Flash. After that, most other mainstream languages will not be too hard.
on all networks including the MPAA's and the RIAA's. Seems like it would be highly discriminatory to put filtering on some networks and not on others. Of course, with these filters in place, the studios could not ever CREATE digital versions of their films/music to begin with. Their conclusion that this filtering would "solve" the "problem" is about as nonsensical as filtering their own networks. If they can't figure out a business model that works in the digital world, maybe they should just go back to film only distribution instead of trying to prevent legitimate use by their customers. I for one pay for my content, but I'm SICK of DRM. I will not use any content with DRM, and until they figure that out, they are spending a whole lot of money on a problem that cannot even theoretically be solved.
All research funding comes from somewhere. Where did the money for research that supports global warming come from? I'm sure that none of it came from companies with an interest in convincing people that global warming is real. Call me a cynic, but I think EVERYTHING needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Proper adherence to HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 standards for caching would be nice!
If the party trying to decrypt your message knows that your "random" data comes from a quasar, they could just monitor the quasar themselves and crack the data pretty quickly (faster than brute force). Cryptography relies on the random data being secret, and this isn't secret at all unless your trying to hide your conversation from someone whose planet can't view the quasar you're using.
We use mwave all the time. Their prices aren't always the absolute lowest, but they are fairly goot and they ship so fast that we almost always get stuff within 48 hours. They have good customer service too--not that you need it--we seem to get much less defective stuff from them than from other vendors. (No, I don't have any ties to them--except as a customer).
Some quick calculations show that the 1111111111 this is referring to is DECIMAL, not binary. The real party should have been the halfway point from 0 to 2^31, which would have been 13:37:04 on 10 Jan 2004.
OK. I solved my problem. Not exactly pleasant. It turns out that my BIOS wasn't the latest, even though my computer is only 2 months old. The latest BIOS solved the problem, and I didn't even lose any data! Given that they are expecting everyone to use automatic updates, seems like they should have done more testing to avoid situations like this. If I'd waited for the automatic update to install it, I'd have come in one morning and had a dead machine with no idea as to why. Not cool.
> SP2 crashed a lot of machines that were already exploited. Good. They were already broken. It worked fine on all my home machines (3), and my tablet pc, but it crashed my main work machine, which was in perfect working order before the install. After installing, windows will not boot at all. Even safe mode hangs. The last file it lists is agp440.sys. After some searching it looks like many other people are having the same problem, and they all have newer Intel processors with hyperthreading, and nobody as yet has posted any kind of solution other than reinstalling windows from scratch. At least when you get a virus you can usually still use most of your system!