I put on 50 pounds in a year after I got married and switching to an office career. It's possible that married men live shorter because they eat too much. Then again it's also possible that having all those nagging wives will send you to an early grave. So the majority of men that don't have wives end up longer and raise the national average.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=394 I get sick of all the stories claiming RFID passports were cloned but they never mention (or understand) the concept of a digitally signed hash that would become invalid the minute you alter any data. This latest story is suggesting that the system does not check the digital signatures when they say:
"But only ten of the forty-five countries with e-passports have signed up to the Public Key Directory (PKD) code system, and only five are using it. Britain is a member but will not use the directory before next year. Even then, the system will be fully secure only if every e-passport country has joined."
This doesn't seem very clear to me. Are they suggesting 35 of 45 countries don't even bother to offline check the hash to see if it's been signed by a legitimate entity? I'm wondering if this PKD system is some sort of online system that allows you to do a real-time check on passport revocations.
If that's the case, then a failure to check the PKD system would leave the system vulnerable to someone who at one time got a valid passport through an official source but the passport was later revoked, but they would not be vulnerable to a self-signed or hash mismatch digital passport. This article is suggesting that 35 countries have basically disabled any sort of cryptographic verification or failed to implement any chain of certificate authority trust which would be shocking if true, but I've been burned by too many of these stories written by gullible reporters who haven't a clue about crypto.
Once you go down the road of name calling, there's no point in continuing this conversation with you.
I'll leave this with anyone else that might be reading. Open Source may have intrinsic values; but it's only useful to someone if they have food to eat and they were able to stay alive against things like Malaria. Someone like Bill Gates is doing something about it and it's silly to criticize him for it especially when they're not doing one millionth as much as Mr. Gates. Sure, it's hard for some people to get beyond the Bill Gates bashing but history is going to remember him in a very positive light and not those who bash him.
I asked you how many real dollars has gone to feed people; not some speculative price tag on people's donated time for source code. You can use the word shill all you like but you haven't answered a single question. As for the EC, I'm simply speaking the truth when I say they're making up the rules as they go along to extract maximum money http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=778.
Again, you are dodging the question of how much money someone like Richard Stallman or anyone else in the Open Source movement have donated to poor people. I only ask this because you seem to be highly critical of Bill Gates and his company doing good for the world so I'm simply turning this question around on you.
You know, I'm sick of the term "convicted monopolist". It really goes to show how out of touch with reality you are. It's sort of like saying that someone is a criminal and convicted parallel parker or convicted speeder. A crime and a conviction results in someone getting sentenced and put in jail. You do not call someone who got a fine a "criminal". The breaking of anti-trust rules (which are extremely nebulous especially when it comes to the EC) results in a fine just like parking in a red zone results in a fine.
The US case was done and over with and Microsoft got fined. In the case of the EC, that's simply another way of imposing a tariff on Microsoft since the EC can declare Microsoft guilty of something if they simply have a majority of the small-to-medium server market as defined by the EC.
What does that have to do with the specific question I asked? How many people has Open Source fed with food, how much medicine has Open Source supplied, how much money has Open Source projects or leaders given to poor people? Anti-trust is very much subjective and you can hardly call it a crime. To do so, you have to have a pretty warped sense of reality. At best, you can call it rule breaking.
With all due respect, how many real-world problems has Open Source solved? How many kids have been fed? How many billions, millions, or even thousands of dollars has Open Source contributed? This isn't attack against Open Source, but your statements are ridiculous. Whether or not you like Microsoft's business model is irrelevant because Gates didn't steal that money; he earned it legally. Bill Gates presented some great ideas and he's doing something good with all his money.
Bush just got crude to drop $35 per barrel in 3 weeks simply by lifting the executive order ban so it's quite naïve of you to say that drilling doesn't help. The market reacted to the future potential of more oil supply by dropping the price of crude drastically. Now imagine what would happen to the price of oil if Pelosi actually allowed a vote on the issue and if congress lifted the congressional ban.
Republicans are at least trying to do something about the supply so it's quite partisan of you to say that they're being shameful when it's the Democrats playing obstructionism. What's shameful is congress leaving for a 5-week vacation when the issue important to this nation's future can't even get voted on. The reality is that we need to deal with both the conservation issue and the supply issue and you need to come to terms with that. Most Americans want more supply but the leadership on the left is playing obstructionism by preventing any sort of vote on the issue.
Obama now wants massive windfall taxes on oil companies which is effectively a higher tax at the gas pumps. That doesn't do a thing to lower gas prices and if Obama reverses Bush's lifting of the ban, you can kiss those recent price drops goodbye.
Read the quotation from the article. It's clearly stating that it now takes "90% less electricity to produce hydrogen". Now if the article had stated that the system reduces waste by 90%, then I can buy that.
The problem is that the article is saying that it now takes 90% less electricity to produce a given amount of hydrogen. Clearly this is misleading. The article also claims that the professor invented a way to store hydrogen in the home which is just plain wrong.
No, we're already at 70% efficiency and the researcher is now claiming close to 100%. That's definitely not a 10-fold increase in efficiency as the first article is implying. If the system is practical to construct, then 99% efficiency is certainly very impressive.
However, you need to bear in mind that compressing and storing hydrogen is very complex and you probably don't want that kind of a fire hazard in your home. Furthermore, the biggest problem is that it's very expensive to buy sufficient panels to generate 1000W of power and it would be more efficient to simply use that power up because you're going to need it and then some if you're trying to run air conditioning. The biggest problem with solar power is that we can't generate enough power and not the fact that we can't store it. We simply don't have any excess to store in the first place.
They have those systems and they're expensive. You need very strong materials keep that much rotational kinetic energy from tearing itself apart. You also need to magnetically levitate it to keep it from slowing down due to friction and also because it would probably be hard on ball bearings.
"Nocera's catalyst is made from cobalt, phosphate and an electrode that produces oxygen from water by using 90 percent less electricity than current methods, which use the costly metal platinum."
Ok wait, I looked it up and we're currently at 70% efficiency on the electrical energy it takes to split water. I believe we lose even more power to compress the gas in to liquid form for storage.
Now let's say we're only at 10% efficiency now on electrolysis. If you decreased the amount of electricity needed by 90%, you're talking about 10 times that efficiency making the electrolysis system 100% efficient which is impossible. If we're currently at 20% efficiency, then we're up to 200% efficiency which is ludicrous.
I read that lower voltage electrolysis is an active research area that increases the efficiency of electrolysis. Now perhaps what this researcher has found is a way to perform electrolysis with 90% less voltage which would improve electrolysis efficiency from 70% to maybe 85% or something in that ballpark range. That would be far more believable. I'm very much inclined to believe that the story should have reported that this new electrolysis process requires 90% less voltage; not 90% less electricity to produce the same amount of hydrogen and oxygen.
That's not what he said at all if you actually read the article. In fact, at the end of it, he thanked the interest groups for bringing this to the FCC's attention and publically shaming Comcast. The result was that Comcast will stop using TCP resets and implement a protocol agnostic network management system by the end of this year and they're working with BitTorrent corporation and the P4P group to improve BitTorrent efficiency as well as a P2P users' bill of rights and responsibilities. So the process of the public and the FCC putting public pressure and humiliation on Comcast did the trick.
The problem with the FCC majority decision is that they're trying to enforce something that they said was never intended to be enforceable and they never went through any formal rule making process.
The article complains that Sugar wouldn't need fast boot speeds once they get suspend working. Umm, that's still not working!?!?!?!
The article criticizes Windows XP for bad Wi-Fi client, but it doesn't mention the fact that the original Sugar GUI didn't even support WPA when shipped and users had to manually configure WPA in command line. The Wi-Fi Supplicant in XP works quite well and it's fully configurable in Group Policy for full automation.
The article says that video for the whole classroom should be done via mesh to point out XP's lack of mesh support. The fact of the matter is, mesh doesn't work. See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=777 and http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=981. If the author has actually tried to stream more than 2 6 Mbps videos on a regular infrastructure Wi-Fi network, he would know how badly it works. Mesh cuts the efficiency of an infrastructure network down by at least half if there's only one repeater station and a whole lot more in real life.
Broadcasting video to a whole classroom using wireless technology actually requires multicast. You only want/need to send (broadcast) the movie once over the airwaves preferably without any acknowledgements and let all the clients pick up whatever they can. Using Unicast is a non-starter and using mesh is ludicrous.
Driver compatibility could be a big issue since Windows Server has VERY little official driver support. Now if you could fool the driver installer in to thinking it's installing on Windows Vista, then it MIGHT work since Windows Server 2008 kernel is identical to Windows Vista SP1 kernel.
LiveCDs don't work on domain accounts. Even if you can get access to the unencrypted SAM file which has the hashed passwords, you can only break it through brute-force hash comparisons if the password is relatively simple. If it's 16-characters random with special symbols and numbers and upper case, you can pretty much forget it. You can however retrieve all your data if the systems are not encryped but you'd need to re-setup your Active Directory from scratch.
"I'm confused then. If what you say is so, and Microsoft's firewall is rock solid, then how could an unpatched Windows installation be pwned in less than four minutes as the summary says? I guess I need to RTFA (grumble mumble)."
Because they used pre-SP2 which is more than 4 years old.
Best thing to do is have a $20 router with NAT enabled by default. It allows you to share your Internet connection with NAT, automatically log in to your PPPoE account, give you a DHCP server, and give you a safe environment with all inbound ports blocked by default. Most Broadband services come bundled with a router/modem in a single device anyways and it's been a non-issue at least for AT&T DSL users since NAT is enabled by default. A lot of cable providers are also sending out routers with new service.
I do agree with you that downloading an offline SP3 installer is a good thing though I would suggest that using nLite to slip stream it in to a new ISO and CD is the best way to go.
Funny thing is that Zone Alarm has had some serious remote exploit vulnerabilities where if you hadn't installed a 3rd party FW in to your Windows XP computer, you'd be safe. Here's an example of one http://secunia.com/advisories/10921/. Windows XP, Vista, Server 2003 and 2008 Firewall has been rock solid and secure. You're simply talking out of your ass and you're giving the typical knee jerk reaction against Microsoft products. You do not have a single example of where Windows XP SP2 firewall is vulnerable to a remote exploit and there isn't a single example of hackers getting through it if all ports are closed.
Patents aren't hidden, trade secrets are hidden. Patents are public but require licensing for a finite amount of time.
Electric cars are very inefficient because of the amount of power lost during generation, transmission, and charging. The fact that most of the world's electricity comes from Coal production which puts out thousands of tons of uranium and thorium in to the atmosphere makes electric cars environmentally wreckless. That might change if we convert to a nuclear economy from a coal economy, but that's not here today.
Yes and many people have this attitude; until it's one of their own loved ones. I'm not saying you're one of those people, but most people would have a change of heart when it's one of their own loved ones murdered.
Slashdot Mirror
I put on 50 pounds in a year after I got married and switching to an office career. It's possible that married men live shorter because they eat too much. Then again it's also possible that having all those nagging wives will send you to an early grave. So the majority of men that don't have wives end up longer and raise the national average.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=394
I get sick of all the stories claiming RFID passports were cloned but they never mention (or understand) the concept of a digitally signed hash that would become invalid the minute you alter any data. This latest story is suggesting that the system does not check the digital signatures when they say:
"But only ten of the forty-five countries with e-passports have signed up to the Public Key Directory (PKD) code system, and only five are using it. Britain is a member but will not use the directory before next year. Even then, the system will be fully secure only if every e-passport country has joined."
This doesn't seem very clear to me. Are they suggesting 35 of 45 countries don't even bother to offline check the hash to see if it's been signed by a legitimate entity? I'm wondering if this PKD system is some sort of online system that allows you to do a real-time check on passport revocations.
If that's the case, then a failure to check the PKD system would leave the system vulnerable to someone who at one time got a valid passport through an official source but the passport was later revoked, but they would not be vulnerable to a self-signed or hash mismatch digital passport. This article is suggesting that 35 countries have basically disabled any sort of cryptographic verification or failed to implement any chain of certificate authority trust which would be shocking if true, but I've been burned by too many of these stories written by gullible reporters who haven't a clue about crypto.
Once you go down the road of name calling, there's no point in continuing this conversation with you.
I'll leave this with anyone else that might be reading. Open Source may have intrinsic values; but it's only useful to someone if they have food to eat and they were able to stay alive against things like Malaria. Someone like Bill Gates is doing something about it and it's silly to criticize him for it especially when they're not doing one millionth as much as Mr. Gates. Sure, it's hard for some people to get beyond the Bill Gates bashing but history is going to remember him in a very positive light and not those who bash him.
I asked you how many real dollars has gone to feed people; not some speculative price tag on people's donated time for source code. You can use the word shill all you like but you haven't answered a single question. As for the EC, I'm simply speaking the truth when I say they're making up the rules as they go along to extract maximum money http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=778.
Again, you are dodging the question of how much money someone like Richard Stallman or anyone else in the Open Source movement have donated to poor people. I only ask this because you seem to be highly critical of Bill Gates and his company doing good for the world so I'm simply turning this question around on you.
You know, I'm sick of the term "convicted monopolist". It really goes to show how out of touch with reality you are. It's sort of like saying that someone is a criminal and convicted parallel parker or convicted speeder. A crime and a conviction results in someone getting sentenced and put in jail. You do not call someone who got a fine a "criminal". The breaking of anti-trust rules (which are extremely nebulous especially when it comes to the EC) results in a fine just like parking in a red zone results in a fine.
The US case was done and over with and Microsoft got fined. In the case of the EC, that's simply another way of imposing a tariff on Microsoft since the EC can declare Microsoft guilty of something if they simply have a majority of the small-to-medium server market as defined by the EC.
What does that have to do with the specific question I asked? How many people has Open Source fed with food, how much medicine has Open Source supplied, how much money has Open Source projects or leaders given to poor people? Anti-trust is very much subjective and you can hardly call it a crime. To do so, you have to have a pretty warped sense of reality. At best, you can call it rule breaking.
With all due respect, how many real-world problems has Open Source solved? How many kids have been fed? How many billions, millions, or even thousands of dollars has Open Source contributed? This isn't attack against Open Source, but your statements are ridiculous. Whether or not you like Microsoft's business model is irrelevant because Gates didn't steal that money; he earned it legally. Bill Gates presented some great ideas and he's doing something good with all his money.
Bush just got crude to drop $35 per barrel in 3 weeks simply by lifting the executive order ban so it's quite naïve of you to say that drilling doesn't help. The market reacted to the future potential of more oil supply by dropping the price of crude drastically. Now imagine what would happen to the price of oil if Pelosi actually allowed a vote on the issue and if congress lifted the congressional ban.
Republicans are at least trying to do something about the supply so it's quite partisan of you to say that they're being shameful when it's the Democrats playing obstructionism. What's shameful is congress leaving for a 5-week vacation when the issue important to this nation's future can't even get voted on. The reality is that we need to deal with both the conservation issue and the supply issue and you need to come to terms with that. Most Americans want more supply but the leadership on the left is playing obstructionism by preventing any sort of vote on the issue.
Obama now wants massive windfall taxes on oil companies which is effectively a higher tax at the gas pumps. That doesn't do a thing to lower gas prices and if Obama reverses Bush's lifting of the ban, you can kiss those recent price drops goodbye.
Sounds pretty optimistic. I'll start beleiving it when I start seeing some real progress.
Read the quotation from the article. It's clearly stating that it now takes "90% less electricity to produce hydrogen". Now if the article had stated that the system reduces waste by 90%, then I can buy that.
The problem is that the article is saying that it now takes 90% less electricity to produce a given amount of hydrogen. Clearly this is misleading. The article also claims that the professor invented a way to store hydrogen in the home which is just plain wrong.
No, we're already at 70% efficiency and the researcher is now claiming close to 100%. That's definitely not a 10-fold increase in efficiency as the first article is implying. If the system is practical to construct, then 99% efficiency is certainly very impressive.
However, you need to bear in mind that compressing and storing hydrogen is very complex and you probably don't want that kind of a fire hazard in your home. Furthermore, the biggest problem is that it's very expensive to buy sufficient panels to generate 1000W of power and it would be more efficient to simply use that power up because you're going to need it and then some if you're trying to run air conditioning. The biggest problem with solar power is that we can't generate enough power and not the fact that we can't store it. We simply don't have any excess to store in the first place.
They have those systems and they're expensive. You need very strong materials keep that much rotational kinetic energy from tearing itself apart. You also need to magnetically levitate it to keep it from slowing down due to friction and also because it would probably be hard on ball bearings.
"Nocera's catalyst is made from cobalt, phosphate and an electrode that produces oxygen from water by using 90 percent less electricity than current methods, which use the costly metal platinum."
Ok wait, I looked it up and we're currently at 70% efficiency on the electrical energy it takes to split water. I believe we lose even more power to compress the gas in to liquid form for storage.
Now let's say we're only at 10% efficiency now on electrolysis. If you decreased the amount of electricity needed by 90%, you're talking about 10 times that efficiency making the electrolysis system 100% efficient which is impossible. If we're currently at 20% efficiency, then we're up to 200% efficiency which is ludicrous.
I read that lower voltage electrolysis is an active research area that increases the efficiency of electrolysis. Now perhaps what this researcher has found is a way to perform electrolysis with 90% less voltage which would improve electrolysis efficiency from 70% to maybe 85% or something in that ballpark range. That would be far more believable. I'm very much inclined to believe that the story should have reported that this new electrolysis process requires 90% less voltage; not 90% less electricity to produce the same amount of hydrogen and oxygen.
That's not what he said at all if you actually read the article. In fact, at the end of it, he thanked the interest groups for bringing this to the FCC's attention and publically shaming Comcast. The result was that Comcast will stop using TCP resets and implement a protocol agnostic network management system by the end of this year and they're working with BitTorrent corporation and the P4P group to improve BitTorrent efficiency as well as a P2P users' bill of rights and responsibilities. So the process of the public and the FCC putting public pressure and humiliation on Comcast did the trick.
See http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=162 and http://www.formortals.com/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/88/Default.aspx
The problem with the FCC majority decision is that they're trying to enforce something that they said was never intended to be enforceable and they never went through any formal rule making process.
The article complains that Sugar wouldn't need fast boot speeds once they get suspend working. Umm, that's still not working!?!?!?!
The article criticizes Windows XP for bad Wi-Fi client, but it doesn't mention the fact that the original Sugar GUI didn't even support WPA when shipped and users had to manually configure WPA in command line. The Wi-Fi Supplicant in XP works quite well and it's fully configurable in Group Policy for full automation.
The article says that video for the whole classroom should be done via mesh to point out XP's lack of mesh support. The fact of the matter is, mesh doesn't work. See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=777 and http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=981. If the author has actually tried to stream more than 2 6 Mbps videos on a regular infrastructure Wi-Fi network, he would know how badly it works. Mesh cuts the efficiency of an infrastructure network down by at least half if there's only one repeater station and a whole lot more in real life.
Broadcasting video to a whole classroom using wireless technology actually requires multicast. You only want/need to send (broadcast) the movie once over the airwaves preferably without any acknowledgements and let all the clients pick up whatever they can. Using Unicast is a non-starter and using mesh is ludicrous.
Driver compatibility could be a big issue since Windows Server has VERY little official driver support. Now if you could fool the driver installer in to thinking it's installing on Windows Vista, then it MIGHT work since Windows Server 2008 kernel is identical to Windows Vista SP1 kernel.
LiveCDs don't work on domain accounts. Even if you can get access to the unencrypted SAM file which has the hashed passwords, you can only break it through brute-force hash comparisons if the password is relatively simple. If it's 16-characters random with special symbols and numbers and upper case, you can pretty much forget it. You can however retrieve all your data if the systems are not encryped but you'd need to re-setup your Active Directory from scratch.
You're wrong, Windows XP SP3 update does include SP2 stuff, but not SP1. When you use nLite, you have to roll in SP1 first and then SP3.
"I'm confused then. If what you say is so, and Microsoft's firewall is rock solid, then how could an unpatched Windows installation be pwned in less than four minutes as the summary says? I guess I need to RTFA (grumble mumble)."
Because they used pre-SP2 which is more than 4 years old.
Best thing to do is have a $20 router with NAT enabled by default. It allows you to share your Internet connection with NAT, automatically log in to your PPPoE account, give you a DHCP server, and give you a safe environment with all inbound ports blocked by default. Most Broadband services come bundled with a router/modem in a single device anyways and it's been a non-issue at least for AT&T DSL users since NAT is enabled by default. A lot of cable providers are also sending out routers with new service.
I do agree with you that downloading an offline SP3 installer is a good thing though I would suggest that using nLite to slip stream it in to a new ISO and CD is the best way to go.
Funny thing is that Zone Alarm has had some serious remote exploit vulnerabilities where if you hadn't installed a 3rd party FW in to your Windows XP computer, you'd be safe. Here's an example of one http://secunia.com/advisories/10921/. Windows XP, Vista, Server 2003 and 2008 Firewall has been rock solid and secure. You're simply talking out of your ass and you're giving the typical knee jerk reaction against Microsoft products. You do not have a single example of where Windows XP SP2 firewall is vulnerable to a remote exploit and there isn't a single example of hackers getting through it if all ports are closed.
Patents aren't hidden, trade secrets are hidden. Patents are public but require licensing for a finite amount of time.
Electric cars are very inefficient because of the amount of power lost during generation, transmission, and charging. The fact that most of the world's electricity comes from Coal production which puts out thousands of tons of uranium and thorium in to the atmosphere makes electric cars environmentally wreckless. That might change if we convert to a nuclear economy from a coal economy, but that's not here today.
I'll have to agree to disagree with that. The Government's job is justice and certain extreme crimes justify extreme punishments.
Yes and many people have this attitude; until it's one of their own loved ones. I'm not saying you're one of those people, but most people would have a change of heart when it's one of their own loved ones murdered.