What, outside of an inbuilt level of paranoia, leads you to think that Google will know what's on your hard drive?
I installed Google Desktop when it first came out. It indexed my drives. I went to search for something and when it did it ASSUMED I also wanted to search the World Wide Web (via Google) for that same string. Why I earth they would assume that I cannot imagine, but there was no way to disable this "feature". So Google will know what's on your hard drive by knowing what you are searching for on it. Of course searches to Google are archived forever and available to anyone with a subpoena^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H request. I uninstalled it immediately.
It seems trivially easy for the government to simply monitor this
application and omit from their logs every search involving any two
words from the apps dictionary. A perfectly clean log of your actual
searches will remain.
Linux already is best. Microsoft's dominance has nothing to do with it being superior, but with Microsoft's business practices and it's focus on dominance.
And if you care to lump Linux in with Unix, Microsoft was hardly the first mover. If not the code than at least the ideas in Linux are mature, refined, tested, and far superior to Windows.
How do the manufacturers test their drives for these higher writing speeds if there is no media available? Is there sample media available only to them, or do they simply trust that when the media arrives it will work?
It certainly can make traffic analysis harder, but it's also pretty obvious that it's extremely inefficient.
Efficient??? Compared to buying a cell phone and disposing of it after a few calls?
they're really not very practical for routine or high volume use.
I don't think that simple terrorist messages would be that high a volume. Efficiency was not the goal. This is not for p2p.
Compared to the traffic analysis threat,...
So the traffic analysis would show that you download every message from a benign newsgroup. So what? Which messages you decode and read they can't know.
[with] just 800,000 [(0.004%)] of them acting as honeypots [it] would restrict a viral outbreak to 2,000 machines.'
Everybody should add the address of at least one of the honeypot machines to their addressbook. If the virus emails itself to everyone in your addressbook, the system learns of it that much quicker.
Let's say Alice the terrorist wants to send a message to Bob the terrorist (or even a group). Alice encrypts the message and posts it through a mixmaster (to make it untraceable) to Usenet. It's freely available to everyone in the world but meaningless since it's encrypted. Bob happens to like downloading all posts to, say, alt.test, and decrypts it. Does this defeat your traffic analysis?
The flaw in your analogy is that you cannot make a million copies of your Harley with your computer at no cost, and you cannot transmit those millions of perfect copies of your Harley over the internet for a negligible cost.
(my pointing out your logic flaw in no way implies any agreement with the **AA)
The point is to make it impossible to copy, but still possible to move the media. Thus when you move (copy) it from your San Disk device to your iPod, you can no longer play it in your San Disk device. Move it around all you want, you still only have one copy. Give it to your friend and you no longer have it.
At least in Qualcomm BREW phones, you can direct the sound to the earphone, normal earpiece, or far-field (ringer) speaker under software control. Plugging in a headphone does not mean that the speaker is disabled.
But adding these ad hoc "leap seconds" -- the last one was tacked on in 1998 -- can be a big hassle for computers operating with software programs that never allowed for a 61-second minute,
Well then, if they can't handle a 61 second minute, how in hell are they going to handle a 25 hour day??? Symmetricom only has 500-600 years to update their software, which hardly seems adequate.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.elpj.com/about/index.html
What do they mean it's not on the Mac? It starts with a lower case 'i', doesn't it? Didn't Apple trademark all possible 'i[A-Z][a-z]*' names?
--J
Instead of the $10 for the theater ticket (forget the $10 for popcorn and drink) you rent for $2, so that saves $8.
Amortizes over 625 movies which is... how many years? By which time you need to upgrade your home theater.
Yeah, OK, I guess the toilet thing makes it worth it.
My Gawd, you mean there are people insane enough to let their browsers store cookies from DoubleClick? Yiikes!
It won't kill self-made videos, it will kill YouTube and sites that employ the technology. Those that don't will flourish in popularity.
And if you care to lump Linux in with Unix, Microsoft was hardly the first mover. If not the code than at least the ideas in Linux are mature, refined, tested, and far superior to Windows.
Are you sure this was filed in New York and not Redmond Washington?
Keep working on it guys. Pretty soon you'll have it not only working while it's off, but giving answers before you ask the question. --J
That still seems like it would be defeated by averaging multiple watermarked copies.
-J
And you can bet that judge 'Benito' Alito's support of Total Presidential Imperial Authority will also end with the next Democrat administration.
--J
How do the manufacturers test their drives for these higher writing speeds if there is no media available? Is there sample media available only to them, or do they simply trust that when the media arrives it will work?
Of course, with embedded VMware!
Efficient??? Compared to buying a cell phone and disposing of it after a few calls?
I don't think that simple terrorist messages would be that high a volume. Efficiency was not the goal. This is not for p2p.
So the traffic analysis would show that you download every message from a benign newsgroup. So what? Which messages you decode and read they can't know.
Everybody should add the address of at least one of the honeypot machines to their addressbook. If the virus emails itself to everyone in your addressbook, the system learns of it that much quicker.
Let's say Alice the terrorist wants to send a message to Bob the terrorist (or even a group). Alice encrypts the message and posts it through a mixmaster (to make it untraceable) to Usenet. It's freely available to everyone in the world but meaningless since it's encrypted. Bob happens to like downloading all posts to, say, alt.test, and decrypts it. Does this defeat your traffic analysis?
(my pointing out your logic flaw in no way implies any agreement with the **AA)
-J
The point is to make it impossible to copy, but still possible to move the media. Thus when you move (copy) it from your San Disk device to your iPod, you can no longer play it in your San Disk device. Move it around all you want, you still only have one copy. Give it to your friend and you no longer have it.
At least in Qualcomm BREW phones, you can direct the sound to the earphone, normal earpiece, or far-field (ringer) speaker under software control. Plugging in a headphone does not mean that the speaker is disabled.
...the U.S. has started development of a special underwater remote-controlled submarine for the rescue of sunken nuclear reactors.
Nah, man, you got it all wrong. The opposite of hot is coooool, and you are one cool dude. So chill out and call off your polar bears, ok?
No, it's because you run telnetd instead of sshd and somebody has hacked into your machine. :)