This rise is due to both melting glaciers and the expansion of oceans as they warm.
And what happens when the ocean gets bigger? The earth gets cooler. It's part of a very large cycle and we're only seeing a very small part of that cycle.
One meter may not sound like much, but that amount of rise could flood many urban coastal areas.
Once again, it's long-term change we're looking for, and you're noticing short-term change.
I totally agree, we need more than a few hundred years of data before we can come to any conclusion about the cause of global warming, especially before acting drastically on that conclusion. A few hundred years in the history of the world is short-term.
On a PC it might be futile to set passwords and try to prevent reinstallation, but a macbook is a bit different, they can't just be reset by hitting a switch like most PCs.
Macbooks are a lot like other pc laptops in that regard, physical security is a bit higher.
I originally crafted a much harsher reply to your post, but I feel bad. Just please understand that you come off as the smug Apple fanboy in these few sentences and that's all I will say about that.
I don't understand what "switch" you are referring to on "PC"s. I'm assuming you mean the clear cmos jumper. I'm not sure if Macs in general have the clear cmos jumper, but from looking in my G4 they most definitely have batteries that power the mobo's volatile memory that holds the BIOS settings. Also, companies that make parts for Macs also make parts for "PC"s. In the Mac commercials, when they refer to computers running Winders by calling them "PC"s, the difference they are talking about is the software. Yes, your Macs are "Personal Computers", even if Apple doesn't prefer you call them that.
I think you can set the password and prevent booting to an external disk or the CD drive, which would prevent booting the installer. The password reset thing isn't on the install disk btw.
You "think"? Educate yourself, we do have teh internets now, google how to get root on a Mac. You don't even need a CD.
I agree with the parent is saying. I was interning in Atlanta, GA area for the past 3 years, and you can expect around $15/hr. My recommendation is don't do any internship for free. CS/IT/SwE majors seem to get paid internships more than other majors, but some companies, *cough*siemens*cough* will try to get away with paying you nothing.
Just that it's "proprietary". I don't get how people think that because something's proprietary that automatically makes it bad. All proprietary means is that it's owned by someone. JAR is a specification, owned by Sun, and as such it is proprietary -- however well-understood and documented it is.
And of course, there are lots of a-holes who basically get their only joy in life from deleting somebody else's work
Just the other week, I was wondering about bash.org (which has been down for quite some time) and looked it up on wikipedia. It was deleted because it "is not covered in reliable published works". But if you check out the deletion log, you'll see in it a user named Bit trollent that has "vowed to destroy Wikipedia" by voting to delete articles. *sigh*
If only there was a protocol that allowed some type of encryption that prevents MITM attacks over the internet... Man, if there was, I bet everyone would use it.
...things like educational institutions and universities get lumped into their own search engine space for instance, this would help narrow down what one is looking for, although it would take time and feedback to design something well for other areas.
There is google scholar. That and the source code one are the only that I've used, but there could be others.
If Microsoft had not succeeded the way they did, you all will be ranting about this big monopoly called Apple and their completely and utterly closed OS platform.
Ya, and like I said, done the exact same thing. I don't think Apple would have struck a deal like that with IBM (which is supposed to be a very different corporate environment). You assume it would be a closed OS platform, but atleast it would also then probably be UNIX. I was simply stating, with no Gates, it is more of a possibility that proprietary software wouldn't be as popular. The fact is, Gates was very vocal about his dislike for non-proprietary software and that had a big impact on it when MS became so big. Not only that, but if there were no MS and only Apple, do you really think that there would be no other competitor? Wow, no kidding we would be ranting about the Apple monopoly...
You're assuming that no one else would have come along and done the exact same thing. Bill Gates just happened to be at the right place at the right time and knew the right people. Hell, it might even be better if Gates wasn't around because then proprietary software might not be so popular...
In the past, I have thought about raising this issue with Bank of America, but I have no idea how to approach them such that I can speak to somebody clueful.
They could be doing it on purpose. The supermarket and stores aren't nearly safe, from BoA's standpoint, as the ATMs are. The ATMs have cameras and it is easy to cover your PIN. The supermarket has no cameras and people all around.
Using certificates is about one thing - encrypted communication between browser A and server B. That's it. Certificates have never given you any guarantee as to the integrity of the site that you're visiting, and it gives no guarantee whatsoever of who you are talking to, as some people are stupidly claiming around here. To give a guarantee like that, further technology is needed.
Encrypted communication between browser A and server B is done via public key encryption, which does not require a certificate at all to work. Certificates are used to bind someone's public key with an identity, that's it. You are correct, no one EVER would say that it is a guarantee, of which there are very few in security. This isn't a black and white issue. You can't just say, "Oh, well, they don't work in these few cases, so we should drop them completely." Certificates DO provide a certain level assurance to the user that I do believe is worth something. They also DO make MITM attacks much harder.
Granted, most of the protection simply comes from public key encryption. Even if a self-signed certificate is used, a MITM will not be able to insert their own certificate, even if it is self-signed, without the user getting a warning in their browser that the fingerprint has changed. But what about the first time that user connected to the website? If the user is expecting a self-signed cert, then the MITM won't have a problem. That is when certs come in. The MITM would have a difficult time getting a cert signed by a CA for a domain they don't even have access to. It's possible, no one said it wasn't, but it's unlikely and requires extra work by the MITM. And that's work that most wouldn't even bother doing, when there are far easier ways (social engineering) to get information you want.
Copying it doesn't really require you to be the man in the middle, and it's not like a "please don't copy"-flag would be respected anyway.
Uh, why not? The information you are sending over the connection only go to routers, it doesn't broadcast your message to every computer on the subnet or something. In order to intercept that communication, you would need to become a router yourself (which is the MITM). Perhaps you are thinking about wireless communication or something?
Also, you use cert and private key as if they mean the same thing. The CA's don't have "trusted certs", they have private keys with well known public keys that they use to sign your public key and identity.
Sorry, I think there needs to be some clarification of that last point. The CA has a root certificate, which is simply their public key (they can self-sign it, but that would be pointless). It wasn't until I read the wikipedia article on the root certificate that I've ever seen verbiage about the "root cert being used to sign other certs", which I think is unclear because it's actually the CA's private key that does the signing (not their public key, which IS the root cert).
I bet the DoD cert is delivered on a secure medium, in a a locked briefcase, chained to the wrist of a scary looking fellow wearing black shades.
You're confused because you think that it is still secrecy that protects the cert. The reason you can trust the CA's root certificate is because the CA's public key is PUBLIC. Anyone can read the cert using the CA's public key, which will decrypt the cert and then you're left with the DoD's public key and their identity (which was supposed to be verified by the CA). You know this hasn't been tampered with en-route because the MITM doesn't have the CA's private key, to re-encrypt the cert after they make any changes (maybe binding another public key with/their/ identity instead). If they did this, you would know immediately because you wouldn't be able to decrypt the cert with the CA's public key.
Also, you use cert and private key as if they mean the same thing. The CA's don't have "trusted certs", they have private keys with well known public keys that they use to sign your public key and identity.
Nvidia, for example, has no reason to open source their drivers for windows because, quite frankly, not enough windows users care.
I think that when Linux finally has a relatively large user base, the majority of them won't care either. There are a lot of people on the Linux side that want a large user base simply to get more attention from hardware manufacturers. This is because, to many people, proprietary drivers are better than no drivers. I think we're seeing this too with gNewSense and Ubuntu where the majority of users would rather have some proprietary drivers and non-free software than no software or less functional software.
However, maybe one day all of the hardware manufactures will realize the potential of all these people offering to write drivers for free for open hardware specs.
People putting loaded handguns in their homes in the case of a wood-be assailant or robber breaking in. This is not only security theater, it increases the risk you are putting yourself and your family in. Not to mention that in most instances of murder the victim knew the assailant. You're more likely to die of suicide than a robber killing you.
Gun vs Burglar is not security theater. It actually does have value in your defense against the burglar and it's not really a "theater" in the sense you aren't even advertising that you are keeping a gun in your home.
I get no headaches from my n800's backlight and find it very convenient when reading in the dark. I don't care about power consumption because everywhere I go I can charge it if I need to, but I usually do so when I go to sleep or when I'm at work where I use it as a digital picture frame. I haven't found it a hassle. When has anyone not been able to charge something in a few days? I would say my non-eInk device is better because not only does it cost less it can do waaay more things than a Sony Reader and I can also read any format available with FBreader and without first having to convert them into some BS format. And I have tried my friend's Sony Reader and can't believe they cost so much for being able to do so little. Oh ya, and I can carry my n800 around in my pocket... With all those things I really can't justify buying a device that is JUST for reading eBooks when there are cheaper devices out there that do a BETTER job and do MORE things.
So, they call him a hypocrite because there are Linux distros that allow installation of non-free software as OpenBSD does. Yet, RMS only recommends certain distros which don't do this, such as gNewSense?
Not at all. There is actually nothing in gNewSense that disallows the installation of non-free software, I'm not quite sure why you think this. They call him a hypocrite because he has recommended certain distributions that recommend or give instructions to install non-free software (which gNewSense is guilty of by giving instructions on how to add Ubuntu's main and universe repositories). Some argue that recommending any Linux distro is hypocritical because it is written in such a way to keep compatibility with existing binary blobs. Also, GNU emacs and gcc include code that lets them be used on commercial operating systems. gNewSense includes LAME and Unrar. Then GNU recommends the use of VLC which has the ability to play mp3s. A few call him a hypocrite because they see him preaching about software freedom while recommending distros that prevent people from using the software how they please. When this is brought up, he simply changes his definition of freedom. RMS even states that he can't view https pages without having someone else fetch them for him (wtf?). RMS constantly states that it is about what the system suggests to the user (in regard to OpenBSD's ports, which is neither included or recommended to begin with), when in all actually OpenBSD suggests its users use binary packages.
All of this stuff stems from inaccurate statements RMS made on bsdtalk about OpenBSD (that it *includes* non-free software) that he did not investigate and probably heard from one of his cronies. When the people at OpenBSD heard of this and talked about it, RMS then starts the whole flamebait thread. The thread pretty much ends with people trying to figure out what RMS was talking about, and how they could apply his thoughts to OpenBSD, but they can't figure out exactly what RMS wants them to do, think it would be a great waste of resources, and don't really care that much anyway. It all becomes very convoluted with wordplay, but it seems the gist of it is that RMS views software freedom differently that OpenBSD.
I am not going to defend either side's views and only find the discussion interesting. If you have a problem with the above, look into the archive and talk to the person that actually made the point in the discussion.
RMS came onto the OpenBSD-misc mailing list in January to inform the subscribers that he had deemed OBSD to be non-free. Much wonderment ensued.
Linkage. In the same thread he also says he won't recommend Gobuntu (the all Free version of Ubuntu) because it sounds like Ubuntu... I strongly recommend going into the archive and reading the whole thread; it's very entertaining.
Slashdot Mirror
And what happens when the ocean gets bigger? The earth gets cooler. It's part of a very large cycle and we're only seeing a very small part of that cycle.
Hyperbole.
I totally agree, we need more than a few hundred years of data before we can come to any conclusion about the cause of global warming, especially before acting drastically on that conclusion. A few hundred years in the history of the world is short-term.
I originally crafted a much harsher reply to your post, but I feel bad. Just please understand that you come off as the smug Apple fanboy in these few sentences and that's all I will say about that.
I don't understand what "switch" you are referring to on "PC"s. I'm assuming you mean the clear cmos jumper. I'm not sure if Macs in general have the clear cmos jumper, but from looking in my G4 they most definitely have batteries that power the mobo's volatile memory that holds the BIOS settings. Also, companies that make parts for Macs also make parts for "PC"s. In the Mac commercials, when they refer to computers running Winders by calling them "PC"s, the difference they are talking about is the software. Yes, your Macs are "Personal Computers", even if Apple doesn't prefer you call them that.
You "think"? Educate yourself, we do have teh internets now, google how to get root on a Mac. You don't even need a CD.
I'll bite. They're called release cycles, and many open source projects, such as gnome and the linux kernel, also do it.
I agree with the parent is saying. I was interning in Atlanta, GA area for the past 3 years, and you can expect around $15/hr. My recommendation is don't do any internship for free. CS/IT/SwE majors seem to get paid internships more than other majors, but some companies, *cough*siemens*cough* will try to get away with paying you nothing.
Maybe that's what proprietary means when not referring to software.
Just the other week, I was wondering about bash.org (which has been down for quite some time) and looked it up on wikipedia. It was deleted because it "is not covered in reliable published works". But if you check out the deletion log, you'll see in it a user named Bit trollent that has "vowed to destroy Wikipedia" by voting to delete articles. *sigh*
Dude, weren't you supposed to submit that anonymously or something?
If only there was a protocol that allowed some type of encryption that prevents MITM attacks over the internet... Man, if there was, I bet everyone would use it.
There is google scholar. That and the source code one are the only that I've used, but there could be others.
Ya, and like I said, done the exact same thing. I don't think Apple would have struck a deal like that with IBM (which is supposed to be a very different corporate environment). You assume it would be a closed OS platform, but atleast it would also then probably be UNIX. I was simply stating, with no Gates, it is more of a possibility that proprietary software wouldn't be as popular. The fact is, Gates was very vocal about his dislike for non-proprietary software and that had a big impact on it when MS became so big. Not only that, but if there were no MS and only Apple, do you really think that there would be no other competitor? Wow, no kidding we would be ranting about the Apple monopoly...
Might want to rethink that.
You're assuming that no one else would have come along and done the exact same thing. Bill Gates just happened to be at the right place at the right time and knew the right people. Hell, it might even be better if Gates wasn't around because then proprietary software might not be so popular...
Granted, most of the protection simply comes from public key encryption. Even if a self-signed certificate is used, a MITM will not be able to insert their own certificate, even if it is self-signed, without the user getting a warning in their browser that the fingerprint has changed. But what about the first time that user connected to the website? If the user is expecting a self-signed cert, then the MITM won't have a problem. That is when certs come in. The MITM would have a difficult time getting a cert signed by a CA for a domain they don't even have access to. It's possible, no one said it wasn't, but it's unlikely and requires extra work by the MITM. And that's work that most wouldn't even bother doing, when there are far easier ways (social engineering) to get information you want.
Also, you use cert and private key as if they mean the same thing. The CA's don't have "trusted certs", they have private keys with well known public keys that they use to sign your public key and identity.
However, maybe one day all of the hardware manufactures will realize the potential of all these people offering to write drivers for free for open hardware specs.
I get no headaches from my n800's backlight and find it very convenient when reading in the dark. I don't care about power consumption because everywhere I go I can charge it if I need to, but I usually do so when I go to sleep or when I'm at work where I use it as a digital picture frame. I haven't found it a hassle. When has anyone not been able to charge something in a few days? I would say my non-eInk device is better because not only does it cost less it can do waaay more things than a Sony Reader and I can also read any format available with FBreader and without first having to convert them into some BS format. And I have tried my friend's Sony Reader and can't believe they cost so much for being able to do so little. Oh ya, and I can carry my n800 around in my pocket... With all those things I really can't justify buying a device that is JUST for reading eBooks when there are cheaper devices out there that do a BETTER job and do MORE things.
I have no idea if this is true or not.
All of this stuff stems from inaccurate statements RMS made on bsdtalk about OpenBSD (that it *includes* non-free software) that he did not investigate and probably heard from one of his cronies. When the people at OpenBSD heard of this and talked about it, RMS then starts the whole flamebait thread. The thread pretty much ends with people trying to figure out what RMS was talking about, and how they could apply his thoughts to OpenBSD, but they can't figure out exactly what RMS wants them to do, think it would be a great waste of resources, and don't really care that much anyway. It all becomes very convoluted with wordplay, but it seems the gist of it is that RMS views software freedom differently that OpenBSD.
I am not going to defend either side's views and only find the discussion interesting. If you have a problem with the above, look into the archive and talk to the person that actually made the point in the discussion.