When I give someone my root password, I assume they can delete all my files.
When I give them a limited shell account and set permissions correctly, I don't make that assumption.
This exploit is more like the later than the former: WPA was supposed to keep traffic of each individual user safe, and now it doesn't.
If twelve years doesn't cut it, I doubt four to eight more will.
Except that those first 12 years were usually spent in local and public schools. The quality of teaching, and perhaps more importantly, what is taught, varies widely based on what community those schools are in (just look at the news about Texas or other bible states gutting science curricula of schools, with ballot measures or legislative decisions).
Higher education, by and large, enjoys the benefit of being a little less public, and can thus teach a curriculum based on science and fact if it wants to, rather than the opinions of the loudest groups in a given district.
Also, many kids travel away from home, or out-of-state to go to school, giving them exposure to a broader range of ideas and cultures.
So yeah, I'm going to say that when arguing that a solid education is important to effective participation in a democracy, it is valid to think four more years might succeed where 12 failed.
First, hydrogen has an energy density of 142 MJ/kg, whereas your gasoline is 45.8.
Second, huge amounts (~70%) of the energy in a tank of gasoline is wasted as heat, whereas a motor can convert closer to 80 or 90% into motion. So we can slash the tank size if we're not going to burn two thirds of it.
Third: why hot swap batteries? They're big and heavy. A small, ultra-high capacity capacitor can actually hold very high potential for quite awhile, and can charge in seconds.
I appreciate that the simplicity of gasoline and it's relatively high energy density was indeed the best thing for the last century, allowing energy to be moved and used anywhere anytime with relatively simple machines. But I think to assume that because it was the best means it is the best and to ignore newer technologies is to miss a possible solution to a looming catastrophe as the days of the petroleum based economy are certainly dwindling.
Yeah, my company built out http://www.seenon.com/ (i was a developer at the time). About six months after launch, our investors called us and told us they had been contacted by a Chinese outfit saying that they were similar to our company, and pointed them towards http://www.kklife.com/.
They didn't even bother to rename the images after they scrapped the whole site.
If the highways were privately operated, I would see no problem with your idea of private fast lanes for the rich. The rich could pay a higher subscription fee for better roads. However, they are (currently) operated by the government, for the public, which has determined that the public is best served by taxing the rich more and providing roads to everyone (we'll overlook the disgusting difference in quality between roads in rich suburbs and poor slums, and run with the assumption that 'roads' of some kind are indeed provided to 'everyone'). My argument was that as businesses, ISPs do what makes business sense. I'm not forced to pay them as I am the IRS, and they have no mission to serve the public good. Now perhaps that should change, but that is another discussio (Our mayor here equated internet access to a basic human right when announcing the Google/Earthlink deal to provide free wifi.... but he has his head up his ass half the time).
And, just for the record, I don't care what they do to the highways, I find the metro rail system quite adequate for getting around with the added bonus of not having to be sober. I actually don't own a car.
Calculate the amount you'll pay them per month, the amount that they get in profit and then the cost of build out. Then figure out how long it takes to realize those "eventual" profits. It just doesn't make business sense sometimes. Now, if we want to say, that rather than being purely profit driven, it should be seen as some kind of right or necessity for the overall good, then that sounds like the time for government to subsidize it into making business sense.
Quick example: We all used to drive down roads just fine, but now that most places have cell phones, "dead zones" are considered a safety hazard when people can't call for help (Economist, July 12th 2007). Now if it really is a matter of public safety, why not subsidize the special cases where it is in the public interest to have another tower installed?
Now another option would be to make it a requirement on the licensing of the spectrum (i.e part of the business cost, so companies can factor it into the profitability equation when they make the decision), but I don't see why, for instace in your DSL example, I should pay more for the 974 feet to my urban Point-of-Presence to support the installation of an extra long run and repeaters for your DSL. It would seem to me that that really is just part of your cost-of-living, just like paying higher San Francisco rents is part of mine.
The cynic in me is thinking "Look how much PR for the film they just drummed up in one of their target markets" (i.e. slashdot geeks).
Now whether the film is leaked or the "dispute" is resolved, all of slashdot now has this film on their radar, and will be much more likely to see it -- like "banned" commercials showing up on youtube. And more likely than not, when the film does make it's way out, they'll get another slashdotting, and the associated bump in PR.
Sure, this makes GW look less than great, but if the film and the game get the PR bump, it will trickle back to GW and/.'ers are quite used to Evil Company IP Rights bruhahas tend to get over it if they like the product.
Slashdot Mirror
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers.
How much do you really need to flush down straight into the sewer (which also requires treatment)?
When I give someone my root password, I assume they can delete all my files.
When I give them a limited shell account and set permissions correctly, I don't make that assumption.
This exploit is more like the later than the former: WPA was supposed to keep traffic of each individual user safe, and now it doesn't.
If twelve years doesn't cut it, I doubt four to eight more will.
Except that those first 12 years were usually spent in local and public schools. The quality of teaching, and perhaps more importantly, what is taught, varies widely based on what community those schools are in (just look at the news about Texas or other bible states gutting science curricula of schools, with ballot measures or legislative decisions).
Higher education, by and large, enjoys the benefit of being a little less public, and can thus teach a curriculum based on science and fact if it wants to, rather than the opinions of the loudest groups in a given district.
Also, many kids travel away from home, or out-of-state to go to school, giving them exposure to a broader range of ideas and cultures.
So yeah, I'm going to say that when arguing that a solid education is important to effective participation in a democracy, it is valid to think four more years might succeed where 12 failed.
First, hydrogen has an energy density of 142 MJ/kg, whereas your gasoline is 45.8.
Second, huge amounts (~70%) of the energy in a tank of gasoline is wasted as heat, whereas a motor can convert closer to 80 or 90% into motion. So we can slash the tank size if we're not going to burn two thirds of it.
Third: why hot swap batteries? They're big and heavy. A small, ultra-high capacity capacitor can actually hold very high potential for quite awhile, and can charge in seconds.
I appreciate that the simplicity of gasoline and it's relatively high energy density was indeed the best thing for the last century, allowing energy to be moved and used anywhere anytime with relatively simple machines. But I think to assume that because it was the best means it is the best and to ignore newer technologies is to miss a possible solution to a looming catastrophe as the days of the petroleum based economy are certainly dwindling.
Uh-huh...
Bye bye safe harbour. Hello Communications Decency. Have fun with your little ticking-timebomb.
[IANAL - yet]
Yeah, my company built out http://www.seenon.com/ (i was a developer at the time).
About six months after launch, our investors called us and told us they had been contacted by a Chinese outfit saying that they were similar to our company, and pointed them towards http://www.kklife.com/.
They didn't even bother to rename the images after they scrapped the whole site.
They're not the speediest at letting you in at 365... this was taken about an hour ago from across the street: http://tastic.brillig.org/~jwb/dorks.jpg
If the highways were privately operated, I would see no problem with your idea of private fast lanes for the rich. The rich could pay a higher subscription fee for better roads. However, they are (currently) operated by the government, for the public, which has determined that the public is best served by taxing the rich more and providing roads to everyone (we'll overlook the disgusting difference in quality between roads in rich suburbs and poor slums, and run with the assumption that 'roads' of some kind are indeed provided to 'everyone'). My argument was that as businesses, ISPs do what makes business sense. I'm not forced to pay them as I am the IRS, and they have no mission to serve the public good. Now perhaps that should change, but that is another discussio (Our mayor here equated internet access to a basic human right when announcing the Google/Earthlink deal to provide free wifi.... but he has his head up his ass half the time).
And, just for the record, I don't care what they do to the highways, I find the metro rail system quite adequate for getting around with the added bonus of not having to be sober. I actually don't own a car.
Calculate the amount you'll pay them per month, the amount that they get in profit and then the cost of build out. Then figure out how long it takes to realize those "eventual" profits. It just doesn't make business sense sometimes. Now, if we want to say, that rather than being purely profit driven, it should be seen as some kind of right or necessity for the overall good, then that sounds like the time for government to subsidize it into making business sense.
Quick example: We all used to drive down roads just fine, but now that most places have cell phones, "dead zones" are considered a safety hazard when people can't call for help (Economist, July 12th 2007). Now if it really is a matter of public safety, why not subsidize the special cases where it is in the public interest to have another tower installed?
Now another option would be to make it a requirement on the licensing of the spectrum (i.e part of the business cost, so companies can factor it into the profitability equation when they make the decision), but I don't see why, for instace in your DSL example, I should pay more for the 974 feet to my urban Point-of-Presence to support the installation of an extra long run and repeaters for your DSL. It would seem to me that that really is just part of your cost-of-living, just like paying higher San Francisco rents is part of mine.
The cynic in me is thinking "Look how much PR for the film they just drummed up in one of their target markets" (i.e. slashdot geeks).
Now whether the film is leaked or the "dispute" is resolved, all of slashdot now has this film on their radar, and will be much more likely to see it -- like "banned" commercials showing up on youtube. And more likely than not, when the film does make it's way out, they'll get another slashdotting, and the associated bump in PR.
Sure, this makes GW look less than great, but if the film and the game get the PR bump, it will trickle back to GW and /.'ers are quite used to Evil Company IP Rights bruhahas tend to get over it if they like the product.
Linux: .\" >> /etc/hosts "
$ sudo bash -c "echo \"66.35.250.150
Windows:
Start->Run-> wordpad %SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
and then add the line.
Informative? Beh, should be tagged Funny. Would make an awesome, cheesy hacker movie though.
If I'm taking me windows machine off of NTFS, I want to be switching to reiserfs (or 4), not ext3.
Actually, the initial display of unstyled content does happen, see this article: http://www.bluerobot.com/web/css/fouc.asp