wow, I was reading this thread and was utterly shocked at how people could get things so backwards. solar panels were meant to be used - degradation is inevitable. There is no need to protect them from the environment; you need to expose them to more environment. With only 11% efficiency you need as much light energy as possible to capture. That is why I poor kerosene on mine and light them ablaze. With all that direct light from the fire, I get unbelievable amounts of power before the unit dies.
Its one thing to admit your wrong. This may redeam character but not credibility. With a history of being wrong and smearing those with a different view, he sets a precedent as being an unreliable news source and despite whatever appologies are given - a liability to Forbes as a trustworthy news source. He would have to work to regain credibility with people checking the facts against what he said. It would be easier to just move to another source of information. If this is merely an attempt to regain face in the journalist world, it will fall flat with any critical thinker
One step further, for someone writing on the technology field - it doesn't serve his purpose to put out condescending statements like "the nerds got it right".
no, I don't think this is a type. Search for somone and u will see that somone is often requested to fix things in numberable fields. Somone is quite smart, so I would be satisfied outsmarting somone. 138,000 search results on google and I am only now hearing of somone. Unbelievable!
Wait, I thought the third law was "Moore's second law takes effect 10-15 years before Moore's first law no longer holds true". I hope I get this straight before the test.... there is going to be a test, right?
any good capitalist knows that you milk a cow for all its worth. SCO could pay them up until now, so why would you leave beforehand? Now that they may not receive a paycheck, its time to leave.
Well,
Can I get one simple clarification... They state that a militia is necessary for an orderly state - something most people understand. The question is, do we have a right to bear arm to participate in this militia or do we have it to protect ourselves from it? The first doesn't make sense in the historical setting, so then if we go with the second, wouldn't one need to truly have our rights not beimpinged? Will a hand gun truly keep an oppressive state at bey?
not if Bruce Willis is still alive. We'll tell him that we're filming for Armageddon Two: the meteor's revenge and unbeknownst to him but knownst to us he will actually be destroying the incoming meteor.
I would expect something more underhanded than lawsuits like crippling access to the backbones that they control. Inserting unnecessary delays, or using their control of media to enhance delivery to only their own customers.
Also, doesn't the article say that private enterprises are welcome to help in this effort? Does this only apply to the state agencies or will it extend to homes? From my reading, the telcos will still have a substantial market there - they may just make sure that this network is as isolated as they can make it be.
This is all easily explained. $62K and 2000 square feet can be very easily explained. Now this guy has to be a typical geek, so they need to provide him with enough soda for the day - IE one vending machine. Now, most of the time, the computers will take care of them selves so they will need something for entertainment - like a secondary system with cool games so he doesn't try to install them on the server. Now, in an age of high-def and large screens, he will require that the game is played on the largest LCD screen available and will also require an appropriately sized room to play it in. Of course he would require access to a bathroom and with the expected hygene of a geek, it may be better to not have them share. Now, we haven't even begun to talk about the food requirements of said geek. So, at the end of the day, 2K in electricity and parts for the server per year, 30K for the salary of the employee (entry level position babysitting a server) - 50K once benefits and co-pays are included. an addition 8K for the electricity for the "supportive devices". Now, you may be thinking that you can fit all this in way less than 2000 square feet. What you are forgetting is that a geek is a solitary animal. Letting them get close together would plummet their already weak work ethic. You will be more likely to end up with a contest to see who can overclock their server faster and end up with a bunch of burnt units or potentially a burnt building.
I thought all this was obvious, but I guess it takes time for people to learn... you might want to speed up your computer a little bit to keep pace.
It is not the lock itself that is implicating a crime, but more to show intent. If there was a dead body in that other room that was locked then locking that door would show there was extra effort to hide it - IE knowledge of crime. A locked door in and of itself is not the issue. What I had said was that data with evidence of fraud had extra encryption. This reduces possible deniability. If the data were mixed together, they may state it was secondary to error or something to that liking.
If someone has child pornography on a computer, they may claim there computer was hacked and it was placed there. on the other hand, if this said pornography were encrypted and the password for this encrypted file were on this persons palm or written somewhere in this persons house, then yes that would show two things. One the person had intent on hiding this data and two that the data did indeed belong to this person.
I never said that encryption in itself was a crime or should raise suspicion, but its use definitely implies something.
What's significant here is that you are suggesting that there is a reason and that you are treating all data the same in which case it can be said that the data is not really hidden. You merely have a ton of encrypted data.
What would be significant and incriminating is selected encryption and "hiding" of data. For example, if all customer information is encrypted, but a select set of customer files for whom you illegally handled funds are kept separately with their own password and login then there is knowledge gained. What is learned is that you took the time and effort to separate those select files from the rest and went to the trouble to make them more difficult to access. It can then be inferred that you had cause independent of all factors other than that these files had evidence of illegal action.
I agree wwith this sentiment as I think many others here would as well.
One thing that many people seem to forget is that life replicates. All it takes is one self replicating particle to be made and it will propogate and fill up its environment
First, let me state that I am not a chemist, so if there is someone who can do a better job of putting this into laymens term, I would be happy.
with that said, how can we be sure its not the interaction of multiple molecules causing this or that this isn't a yet undiscovered molecule leading to this effect?
I'm a bit wary of any indirrect measurement, so if someone with the proper background wishes to do some enlightenment, I'd be more than happy to read (even references would be nice).
don't you have an option to manually embed the video into any site? This would bypass the sending of anything in plaintext.
of course if the login for a site is plaintext, there isn't much you can do about it. The real question would be google's retention policy on the username/password field for you ancillary services.
There is one problem with this line of thought. One is peoples perception of cheap or free. Take cell phones for instance. If one factors in the cost of a subscription, free cell phone deals aren't really that great due to the lockin. How does MS compete with free? Make things subscription based. If they give away these one hundred dollar computers that only work w/ MS online technologies, they can keep your data on a server. At that point, you will have to use their technology to access it. Same principle as people using word documents.
They can control your access to your own data making a 100 dollar linux device as worthless as a rock. Once this is done, they can give away binary only copies of windows to the manufacturers who in all likelyhood will be happy to accept the MS lockin system.
The general population has been slow to adopt slashdot as compared to the adoption of computers. I am working on research on that right now. Why do you think that is?
I was going to express my opinion on this topic, but then I realized that I am logged into my account. The last thing I want is for an officer to be reading this and then to pull me over for something small and then have it escalate. Seriously, who is crazy enough to post a real opinion on a public forum without being anonymous.
it is actionable if it is defamation which is what one would be concerned about with people posting anonymously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
Lying if it causes harm is most definitly actionable and not protected under freedom of speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Libel .2C_slander.2C_and_private_action
While I know wikipedia isn't the most reputable source for informaiton and underlies the problem brought up in thie article, it was easy to find... wow the irony of posting this is so overwhelming. On the flip side, the site is consistent with what I remember learning in school.
While there are a lot of things wrong with this, there are measures that can be taken to protect people.
One, if someone is gettting paid - there is a papertrail however weak. Second, if they can track where things are being posted there is now a way to link the person being paid to the post they made. As long as this information can be subpoenaed, thre would be a way to unmask a person.
On the otherhand, removing people anonymity may discourage people from taking a stand against true insults and crimes.
Except for the most gullible people (bottom 95 percentile), these posts don't do much The top 5th will know better than to trust an internet post... of course by my own statement, only 5% will be smart enough not to believe this statement... scary.
while this may be true, did you ever think of the damage to the car these people cause? One of the advantages of living in the city was that there are no deer. There is also the problem of the driver who does not yield to pedestrians in the cross walk. While the importance of maintaining natural selection is important, so is the well being of every day drivers and their cars. Perhaps banishing a selected portion of the population to areas outside the city where survival conditions can be better tested. If they make it back to the city, they will be allowed to stay short of another infraction.
How much harm has come from Apple bundling Safari? How much harm has come from Microsoft bundling IE? In court, damages play a significant role in deciding whether or not to prosecute. It is up to the state to see if significant harm has come of an action. Also, there are different standards for monopolies and non-monopolies. Is this fair? Yes, especially when corporations are nothing more than legal entities that obtain their monopoly status through government protection. There is nothing wrong with the government undermining large corporations for the greater good. The notion of corporations exist to serve the public good and must be regulated to that end. Apple has done little to damage the market place, so even if they do participate in bad practices, it may not be worth the effort from the standpoint of politicians to persue a case against them. I see nothing wrong with their decision to go after microsoft.... mainly because I have no stock in the company
Slashdot Mirror
wow, I was reading this thread and was utterly shocked at how people could get things so backwards. solar panels were meant to be used - degradation is inevitable. There is no need to protect them from the environment; you need to expose them to more environment. With only 11% efficiency you need as much light energy as possible to capture. That is why I poor kerosene on mine and light them ablaze. With all that direct light from the fire, I get unbelievable amounts of power before the unit dies.
Its one thing to admit your wrong. This may redeam character but not credibility. With a history of being wrong and smearing those with a different view, he sets a precedent as being an unreliable news source and despite whatever appologies are given - a liability to Forbes as a trustworthy news source. He would have to work to regain credibility with people checking the facts against what he said. It would be easier to just move to another source of information. If this is merely an attempt to regain face in the journalist world, it will fall flat with any critical thinker
One step further, for someone writing on the technology field - it doesn't serve his purpose to put out condescending statements like "the nerds got it right".
no, I don't think this is a type. Search for somone and u will see that somone is often requested to fix things in numberable fields. Somone is quite smart, so I would be satisfied outsmarting somone. 138,000 search results on google and I am only now hearing of somone. Unbelievable!
Wait, I thought the third law was "Moore's second law takes effect 10-15 years before Moore's first law no longer holds true". I hope I get this straight before the test.... there is going to be a test, right?
any good capitalist knows that you milk a cow for all its worth. SCO could pay them up until now, so why would you leave beforehand? Now that they may not receive a paycheck, its time to leave.
Well, Can I get one simple clarification... They state that a militia is necessary for an orderly state - something most people understand. The question is, do we have a right to bear arm to participate in this militia or do we have it to protect ourselves from it? The first doesn't make sense in the historical setting, so then if we go with the second, wouldn't one need to truly have our rights not beimpinged? Will a hand gun truly keep an oppressive state at bey?
not if Bruce Willis is still alive. We'll tell him that we're filming for Armageddon Two: the meteor's revenge and unbeknownst to him but knownst to us he will actually be destroying the incoming meteor.
I would expect something more underhanded than lawsuits like crippling access to the backbones that they control. Inserting unnecessary delays, or using their control of media to enhance delivery to only their own customers.
Also, doesn't the article say that private enterprises are welcome to help in this effort? Does this only apply to the state agencies or will it extend to homes? From my reading, the telcos will still have a substantial market there - they may just make sure that this network is as isolated as they can make it be.
This is all easily explained. $62K and 2000 square feet can be very easily explained. Now this guy has to be a typical geek, so they need to provide him with enough soda for the day - IE one vending machine. Now, most of the time, the computers will take care of them selves so they will need something for entertainment - like a secondary system with cool games so he doesn't try to install them on the server. Now, in an age of high-def and large screens, he will require that the game is played on the largest LCD screen available and will also require an appropriately sized room to play it in. Of course he would require access to a bathroom and with the expected hygene of a geek, it may be better to not have them share. Now, we haven't even begun to talk about the food requirements of said geek. So, at the end of the day, 2K in electricity and parts for the server per year, 30K for the salary of the employee (entry level position babysitting a server) - 50K once benefits and co-pays are included. an addition 8K for the electricity for the "supportive devices". Now, you may be thinking that you can fit all this in way less than 2000 square feet. What you are forgetting is that a geek is a solitary animal. Letting them get close together would plummet their already weak work ethic. You will be more likely to end up with a contest to see who can overclock their server faster and end up with a bunch of burnt units or potentially a burnt building.
I thought all this was obvious, but I guess it takes time for people to learn... you might want to speed up your computer a little bit to keep pace.
It is not the lock itself that is implicating a crime, but more to show intent. If there was a dead body in that other room that was locked then locking that door would show there was extra effort to hide it - IE knowledge of crime. A locked door in and of itself is not the issue. What I had said was that data with evidence of fraud had extra encryption. This reduces possible deniability. If the data were mixed together, they may state it was secondary to error or something to that liking. If someone has child pornography on a computer, they may claim there computer was hacked and it was placed there. on the other hand, if this said pornography were encrypted and the password for this encrypted file were on this persons palm or written somewhere in this persons house, then yes that would show two things. One the person had intent on hiding this data and two that the data did indeed belong to this person. I never said that encryption in itself was a crime or should raise suspicion, but its use definitely implies something.
What's significant here is that you are suggesting that there is a reason and that you are treating all data the same in which case it can be said that the data is not really hidden. You merely have a ton of encrypted data. What would be significant and incriminating is selected encryption and "hiding" of data. For example, if all customer information is encrypted, but a select set of customer files for whom you illegally handled funds are kept separately with their own password and login then there is knowledge gained. What is learned is that you took the time and effort to separate those select files from the rest and went to the trouble to make them more difficult to access. It can then be inferred that you had cause independent of all factors other than that these files had evidence of illegal action.
I agree wwith this sentiment as I think many others here would as well. One thing that many people seem to forget is that life replicates. All it takes is one self replicating particle to be made and it will propogate and fill up its environment
First, let me state that I am not a chemist, so if there is someone who can do a better job of putting this into laymens term, I would be happy. with that said, how can we be sure its not the interaction of multiple molecules causing this or that this isn't a yet undiscovered molecule leading to this effect? I'm a bit wary of any indirrect measurement, so if someone with the proper background wishes to do some enlightenment, I'd be more than happy to read (even references would be nice).
don't you mean HD-DVD?
The flames are out ther, let the war begin!
don't you have an option to manually embed the video into any site? This would bypass the sending of anything in plaintext.
of course if the login for a site is plaintext, there isn't much you can do about it. The real question would be google's retention policy on the username/password field for you ancillary services.
or we are dealing with Lore
There is one problem with this line of thought. One is peoples perception of cheap or free. Take cell phones for instance. If one factors in the cost of a subscription, free cell phone deals aren't really that great due to the lockin. How does MS compete with free? Make things subscription based. If they give away these one hundred dollar computers that only work w/ MS online technologies, they can keep your data on a server. At that point, you will have to use their technology to access it. Same principle as people using word documents. They can control your access to your own data making a 100 dollar linux device as worthless as a rock. Once this is done, they can give away binary only copies of windows to the manufacturers who in all likelyhood will be happy to accept the MS lockin system.
well, it may get more people to click through, but I doubt it will get more people to read. More likely a lot of disappointment.
The general population has been slow to adopt slashdot as compared to the adoption of computers. I am working on research on that right now. Why do you think that is?
well, the above was meant as a joke, but guess it didn't work out quite the way I intended. Perhaps more thought on the wording next time.
I was going to express my opinion on this topic, but then I realized that I am logged into my account. The last thing I want is for an officer to be reading this and then to pull me over for something small and then have it escalate. Seriously, who is crazy enough to post a real opinion on a public forum without being anonymous.
it is actionable if it is defamation which is what one would be concerned about with people posting anonymously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel Lying if it causes harm is most definitly actionable and not protected under freedom of speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Libel .2C_slander.2C_and_private_action
While I know wikipedia isn't the most reputable source for informaiton and underlies the problem brought up in thie article, it was easy to find... wow the irony of posting this is so overwhelming. On the flip side, the site is consistent with what I remember learning in school.
While there are a lot of things wrong with this, there are measures that can be taken to protect people.
One, if someone is gettting paid - there is a papertrail however weak. Second, if they can track where things are being posted there is now a way to link the person being paid to the post they made. As long as this information can be subpoenaed, thre would be a way to unmask a person.
On the otherhand, removing people anonymity may discourage people from taking a stand against true insults and crimes.
Except for the most gullible people (bottom 95 percentile), these posts don't do much The top 5th will know better than to trust an internet post... of course by my own statement, only 5% will be smart enough not to believe this statement... scary.
while this may be true, did you ever think of the damage to the car these people cause? One of the advantages of living in the city was that there are no deer. There is also the problem of the driver who does not yield to pedestrians in the cross walk. While the importance of maintaining natural selection is important, so is the well being of every day drivers and their cars. Perhaps banishing a selected portion of the population to areas outside the city where survival conditions can be better tested. If they make it back to the city, they will be allowed to stay short of another infraction.
How much harm has come from Apple bundling Safari? How much harm has come from Microsoft bundling IE? In court, damages play a significant role in deciding whether or not to prosecute. It is up to the state to see if significant harm has come of an action. Also, there are different standards for monopolies and non-monopolies. Is this fair? Yes, especially when corporations are nothing more than legal entities that obtain their monopoly status through government protection. There is nothing wrong with the government undermining large corporations for the greater good. The notion of corporations exist to serve the public good and must be regulated to that end. Apple has done little to damage the market place, so even if they do participate in bad practices, it may not be worth the effort from the standpoint of politicians to persue a case against them. I see nothing wrong with their decision to go after microsoft.... mainly because I have no stock in the company