Big Oil has been buying and burying patents for 50 years. So the "why haven't we seen cheap, ultra-efficient cars?" question is answered by, "BIG OIL wants it that way."
If you have compelling, verifiable proof of truth on the issue, let's get it published so we can end the debate.
Until then, it is a matter of beliefs, and should be handled as such, by the parents and spiritual counsellors of the student.
Science class needs to present it as a contentious subject, noting that there has been no definitive proof, and noting both sides positions. However, not all teachers are unbiased enough to present it this way.
In the end, on this and most other subjects, PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION. This should not be in the hands of the government.
I stand corrected. I just read the overview link posted by AC. So, the encryption is there.
The whole process is too expensive for full network encryption though. And my original point is that TOR shouldn't be overloaded with P2P. It is abusive of the network and could potentially cause legal issues for TOR which might interfere with their ability to offer their legitimate services.
TOR is still not encrypting anything. Anonymization means that you can't tell the real original IP address where the packet came from. Without some sort of encryption, all of the data is still transferred in the clear.
My point was, and remains, that you can't have secure transfer with anonmyization alone. You need encryption as well.
And instructions exist for setting up some bittorrent clients to use TOR for trackers. It would definitely be a good idea to use it for the.torrent file itself.
For private, secure Internet communications, you need to encrypt the data before putting it on the wire. You would need to encapsulate the data, encrypt it, encapsulate the destination, encrypt again. Transfer to the anonymizing network where the outer layer is decrypted. Do some network address translation type operation so that the anonymizer knows the response and encapsulate that information (probably NAT or PAT type operation). Optional encryption step. Then to the destination network where the data is extracted. As long as all the methodology is agreed upon, this type of scheme would be secure. The problems include getting everyone to agree on protocols and setting up the anonymizers in the middle. The protocols would not be lightweight, and assuming that the primary customers are bittorrent customers, the overall throughput would be absolutely staggering.
For 1000 customers, if they average a gig a day, that's a terabyte per day throughput, PLUS overhead.
Interesting. You've made me think of a drawback attached IT certification. I guess when you have a couple of IT certs, you probably lose the ability to claim "moron in a hurry" when in court.
Thanks. You're the second person who replied about my sig, but the first who pointed out my error. I've fixed it. BTW, in my defense, I had sigs turned off in my preferences, so I haven't seen my sig in 4 or 5 years.
TOR is not robust enough to handle P2P traffic. PLUS IT DOES NOT HIDE THE DATA YOU ARE TRANSFERRING. This plan by TPB is designed to encrypt the traffic. A separate TOR-like plan would be required to anonymize source/destination IP's. Or a third option that does both.
TOR was designed to help people remain anonymous and communicate safely on the web. Misusing it for illegal purposes will cause TOR to become unavailable for its original purpose, which will be sad.
Please don't blindly use TOR for P2P. You'll bring TOR to its knees. TOR is supported by volunteers and isn't designed for the massive load P2P would put on it. Plus, TOR only provides anonymity at the destination, and it only hides your IP. TOR does not provide encryption. Snooping at your ISP would still show all packets in the clear.
In an attempt to stop child pornography, I agree that the government (at least in the U.S.) will try to make the last mile ISP's responsible for blocking it. Since so many consider it the worst evil in the world, we in the U.S. may find ourselves looking at another situation where, in an attempt to stop one instance of something bad, we give up freedom over a wide range of situations. I also agree that the 'studios' will lobby to pass any legislation they can sponsor through, in order to twist it to their purposes.
In the vein of Big Money and Big Oil, welcome to the age of Big Multinational Conglomerate.
Yes, your point? Please note that I never said that accessing those renewable resources was free (or cheap) or that they would have no environmental impact. What I said was that if we build carefully, with an eye towards minimizing ecological impact, we can have renewable, green sources for energy.
My time is worth (Salary/2000). That figure for me is > $20/hr.
The one hour estimate that I used includes only finding the official distro download link (~15min), starting the downloads or torrents (seconds), verifying the hash on the finished download (~5min per file), burning the resulting CD's to blank (~5-10 min each if successful), verifying the burn (~5-10 min each, again) and archiving or deleting the downloaded files (seconds).
How many disks does Ubuntu distro use? Last time I did Fedora it was 5 with 6th optional. Suse was similar in size.
The point I was trying to make, which *whooshed*, is that when people say, "It's not worth it when you can download the same thing", they rarely take into account the convenience factor. Personally, if I could get to Best Buy, I'd buy a copy of this. It would allow me to try Ubuntu without losing any family time.
As for gas, etc., combine trips. Stop in as you're passing by and you've only used some time, and not very much of it.
Actually, I think MS may have snuck this one in, intentionally or unintentionally, when they configured the Windows default soundcard drivers for these cards.
BTW, I have a Dell laptop with the mentioned sound card embedded. I have never had any issues with using my microphone.
I want to say that I oppose the teaching of creation, no matter what you call it, in the curriculum of public schools if the teaching of evolution is not also included. And I respect the other side saying "no teaching of evolution without teaching of creation."
I believe the lecture should go something like this. "How the universe came to be is a matter of controversy, ongoing for millenia. The two basic theories are Creation and Evolution. Creation is defined as {______brief neutral definition______}. Evolution is defined as {______brief neutral definition______}. The controversy of the issue means that I cannot tell you which one is right. You must discuss this with your parents and/or your spiritual advisor".
You're right, this is something of a cop-out. But if it is done any other way, the children will only get one side of the story, depending on which camp lobbies the school board more effectively. I'd rather see the issue 'non-taught' than see this happen. At least my version will inform the students of the nature of the controversy, and spur them to discuss the issue with parents.
For a stand-alone, non-networked system, it doesn't matter if your Windows is updated for the latest security patches.
For embedded solutions, I agree, the Linux/UNIX solutions make more sense. But if you're dealing with something that someone else purchased or developed, you have very little choice.
A couple of those instances should not be using computers, like the green arrows. I think a lightbulb would work better, or a neon sign even.
As for medical equipment. Sure, any equipment involved in medical procedures should be monitored and have an extremely detailed history of what patches have been applied and when. At the same time, this equipment should not be connected to a network, or if it is, then it should be on a highly protected LAN that is not connected to the internet. Why? Go back to my original comment. When a computer is not on the internet, then securing the computer becomes a matter of physical security. Then the only patches needed are the ones that fix operational issues. The security patches can be bundled and applied in bunches.
Slashdot Mirror
Big Oil has been buying and burying patents for 50 years. So the "why haven't we seen cheap, ultra-efficient cars?" question is answered by, "BIG OIL wants it that way."
http://www.torproject.org/overview.html.en
I appreciate the original, stated uses. TOR is for privacy.
Personally, I think all routers should be converted to operate the same way TOR does.
TANSTAAFL. Google that. Sorry for the misspelling.
If you have compelling, verifiable proof of truth on the issue, let's get it published so we can end the debate.
Until then, it is a matter of beliefs, and should be handled as such, by the parents and spiritual counsellors of the student.
Science class needs to present it as a contentious subject, noting that there has been no definitive proof, and noting both sides positions. However, not all teachers are unbiased enough to present it this way.
In the end, on this and most other subjects, PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION. This should not be in the hands of the government.
TOR does encrypt the data in transit, except the last hop from the router network to the destination.
I stand corrected. I just read the overview link posted by AC. So, the encryption is there.
The whole process is too expensive for full network encryption though. And my original point is that TOR shouldn't be overloaded with P2P. It is abusive of the network and could potentially cause legal issues for TOR which might interfere with their ability to offer their legitimate services.
TOR is still not encrypting anything. Anonymization means that you can't tell the real original IP address where the packet came from. Without some sort of encryption, all of the data is still transferred in the clear.
My point was, and remains, that you can't have secure transfer with anonmyization alone. You need encryption as well.
And instructions exist for setting up some bittorrent clients to use TOR for trackers. It would definitely be a good idea to use it for the .torrent file itself.
For private, secure Internet communications, you need to encrypt the data before putting it on the wire. You would need to encapsulate the data, encrypt it, encapsulate the destination, encrypt again. Transfer to the anonymizing network where the outer layer is decrypted. Do some network address translation type operation so that the anonymizer knows the response and encapsulate that information (probably NAT or PAT type operation). Optional encryption step. Then to the destination network where the data is extracted. As long as all the methodology is agreed upon, this type of scheme would be secure. The problems include getting everyone to agree on protocols and setting up the anonymizers in the middle. The protocols would not be lightweight, and assuming that the primary customers are bittorrent customers, the overall throughput would be absolutely staggering.
For 1000 customers, if they average a gig a day, that's a terabyte per day throughput, PLUS overhead.
Interesting. You've made me think of a drawback attached IT certification. I guess when you have a couple of IT certs, you probably lose the ability to claim "moron in a hurry" when in court.
Thanks. You're the second person who replied about my sig, but the first who pointed out my error. I've fixed it. BTW, in my defense, I had sigs turned off in my preferences, so I haven't seen my sig in 4 or 5 years.
things rarely end up as they should.
TOR is not robust enough to handle P2P traffic. PLUS IT DOES NOT HIDE THE DATA YOU ARE TRANSFERRING. This plan by TPB is designed to encrypt the traffic. A separate TOR-like plan would be required to anonymize source/destination IP's. Or a third option that does both.
TOR was designed to help people remain anonymous and communicate safely on the web. Misusing it for illegal purposes will cause TOR to become unavailable for its original purpose, which will be sad.
Please don't blindly use TOR for P2P. You'll bring TOR to its knees. TOR is supported by volunteers and isn't designed for the massive load P2P would put on it. Plus, TOR only provides anonymity at the destination, and it only hides your IP. TOR does not provide encryption. Snooping at your ISP would still show all packets in the clear.
I thought best practice was to lock that thing down til it squeeks when you use it.
No, Open WiFi is like standing there waiting for someone to shove something up your arse. Yer gonna get screwed.
In an attempt to stop child pornography, I agree that the government (at least in the U.S.) will try to make the last mile ISP's responsible for blocking it. Since so many consider it the worst evil in the world, we in the U.S. may find ourselves looking at another situation where, in an attempt to stop one instance of something bad, we give up freedom over a wide range of situations. I also agree that the 'studios' will lobby to pass any legislation they can sponsor through, in order to twist it to their purposes.
In the vein of Big Money and Big Oil, welcome to the age of Big Multinational Conglomerate.
Horrible analogy.
That's their argument. In a nutshell. Guided Evolution. Intelligent Design. Watchmaker in philosophy.
Yes, your point? Please note that I never said that accessing those renewable resources was free (or cheap) or that they would have no environmental impact. What I said was that if we build carefully, with an eye towards minimizing ecological impact, we can have renewable, green sources for energy.
*whoosh*
My time is worth (Salary/2000). That figure for me is > $20/hr.
The one hour estimate that I used includes only finding the official distro download link (~15min), starting the downloads or torrents (seconds), verifying the hash on the finished download (~5min per file), burning the resulting CD's to blank (~5-10 min each if successful), verifying the burn (~5-10 min each, again) and archiving or deleting the downloaded files (seconds).
How many disks does Ubuntu distro use? Last time I did Fedora it was 5 with 6th optional. Suse was similar in size.
The point I was trying to make, which *whooshed*, is that when people say, "It's not worth it when you can download the same thing", they rarely take into account the convenience factor. Personally, if I could get to Best Buy, I'd buy a copy of this. It would allow me to try Ubuntu without losing any family time.
As for gas, etc., combine trips. Stop in as you're passing by and you've only used some time, and not very much of it.
Actually, I think MS may have snuck this one in, intentionally or unintentionally, when they configured the Windows default soundcard drivers for these cards.
BTW, I have a Dell laptop with the mentioned sound card embedded. I have never had any issues with using my microphone.
I want to say that I oppose the teaching of creation, no matter what you call it, in the curriculum of public schools if the teaching of evolution is not also included. And I respect the other side saying "no teaching of evolution without teaching of creation."
I believe the lecture should go something like this. "How the universe came to be is a matter of controversy, ongoing for millenia. The two basic theories are Creation and Evolution. Creation is defined as {______brief neutral definition______}. Evolution is defined as {______brief neutral definition______}. The controversy of the issue means that I cannot tell you which one is right. You must discuss this with your parents and/or your spiritual advisor".
You're right, this is something of a cop-out. But if it is done any other way, the children will only get one side of the story, depending on which camp lobbies the school board more effectively. I'd rather see the issue 'non-taught' than see this happen. At least my version will inform the students of the nature of the controversy, and spur them to discuss the issue with parents.
For a stand-alone, non-networked system, it doesn't matter if your Windows is updated for the latest security patches.
For embedded solutions, I agree, the Linux/UNIX solutions make more sense. But if you're dealing with something that someone else purchased or developed, you have very little choice.
A couple of those instances should not be using computers, like the green arrows. I think a lightbulb would work better, or a neon sign even.
As for medical equipment. Sure, any equipment involved in medical procedures should be monitored and have an extremely detailed history of what patches have been applied and when. At the same time, this equipment should not be connected to a network, or if it is, then it should be on a highly protected LAN that is not connected to the internet. Why? Go back to my original comment. When a computer is not on the internet, then securing the computer becomes a matter of physical security. Then the only patches needed are the ones that fix operational issues. The security patches can be bundled and applied in bunches.
almost instantaneous, error-free and unlimited access to the Internet anywhere in the world
of what this guy's smokin?
Keep poppin' 'em as soon as they stick their heads up? Like terrorist leaders?
!dead