I ran my first virtual machine on an athlon 2200+ with 768 megs of ram. If it can run windows 7, you can run a VM or 3 (Depending on how heavy you want to get). Essentially take your computer, subtract the cycles and ram required to run the OS and background programs, that's the hardware you have left over to run the os. If the guest OS was compatible with your original hardware, chances are it'll work just fine in the OS.
You're not the first and you won't be the last, there was an article a while back pondering why so many techies were libertarians or had libertarian views.
There's a difference between having enough canned foods to last you a week and having a bug out vehicle fully stocked and ready to take you to safety and support you along the way.
Correct, hence the digital survivalists comment. Society isn't falling apart yet, but people are preparing for any real life disaster that can come their way. The problems you stated above aren't happening yet, but the digital survivalists are preparing for any of the above "disasters" to come their way.
In a world without sharp objects, knives, or sidewalks, there would be no business case for bandaids. IPV6 is a solution to a problem that hasn't asserted itself. How often do you buy cough medicine when you haven't been sick in a while? This goes the same for ipv6. Until ISP's start charging more for ipv4 addresses due to scarcity, nobody is going to switch beyond digital survivalists and people who like to tinker with new technology.
Some counterfeit products stem from overruns. I.e. Lee commissions an order for 500 pairs of jeans from a factory, the factory gets sent 600 logos and makes 600 pairs of jeans. They get paid for the original 500 count jean order and then turn around and sell the real deal (same factory, same material and techniques, same quality, real logo) to the black market. Except the additional 100 pairs are counterfeit (Legally so).
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to prevent a legit buyer of a pair of the original 500 jeans from reselling their product... Lets lawyer up!
Hi, Me again, by the way, even though your FILES may live entirely in the documents and settings/username folder, the page file, 4 out of 5 registry hives, and other forensically important data exists outside of the user folder which may be recoverable to a determined attacker with whole drive access.
I know its possible to make user directories private from within windows, and I'd be surprised if microsoft didn't have an existing policy for rolling out EFS (as stated above) to user folders.
If this is a single computer not on a network, why not use truecrypt to encrypt the entire drive? I have not noticed ANY slow down on any relatively modern system running whole drive encryption. Its a simple 45 minute process for less than 100gig drives.
I'm not familiar with any open source alternative to this, but you shouldn't have to look anywhere beyond the tools available on a windows active directory.
I have no problem with you scheduling low-latency traffic over filesharing traffic, filtering, or whatever, but it seems a little short-sighted that it only takes 5.71 users to completely muck up your network. (I.E if you sell 1mbit connections, you could "theoretically" support 420 customers on a 6mibt pipe (6*70=420 at a 70:1 oversell ratio).
Red hat has given back to the community, how has google been bettered by infinite sms? Is there now a free "fedora core" sms gateway? Novell and Red Hat provided value without depriving the linux community of anything. Infinite SMS increased google's monthly bills without giving ANYTHING back. (Give vs Take). When you develop open source, you fix bugs, advertise, and raise awareness, everybody wins.
Perhaps you should have tried a car analogy because yours is broken.
In 1994, I had a computer that came with a 14.4 modem, a pentium 75 mhz system and an 815 mbyte hard drive. In 1989, I had an IBM ps/2 with a 30 mb hard drive. I'd consider the range for 40-80mb hd's to be the very early 90's, and definitely the very early period of the 91-93 reign of the gopher protocol.
I suppose, but its also the digital equivalent of alchemy. In the eighties and ninetys, the sampled artists would most likely be listenable to on their own and the mix would be the sum of its parts. You could play the sampled artists at a party and not clear the dance floor.
However, in this case, he's pulling from wierd instrument solos and lessons as well as regular solos and stand-alone vocals, each, on its own would be barely watchable on the merits of musicality, but combining these baser parts with some tweaking, he came out with, well, "music gold". You play a guitar lesson youtube video, and all but guitar players and the like are bored, you could probably get away with playing some of the other mashups at a club of some sort and not get any complaints.
I suppose that this is just the kind of spark that you spend the first 15 seconds thinking "Wow, who would have thought of it?" And then spend the rest of the video realizing that it makes perfect sense. You take all of the individual artists, a guy with a web cam and some spare time, and combine them together into a one time use band or orchestra. We compile our kernels with individual modules, why not our music?
I have an asus mobo with the quickboot environment, I can browse the web and use skype (though i have yet to actually USE it), however, what would be more interesting to me would be to have this environment be persistent while windows boots in the background, install a driver in windows that sends a message over to the preboot/quickboot environment that says "Finished booting, would you like to move this browsing session over to windows?" I'd click yes, enter my username/password to be passed as login credentials and it would load firefox in the background with all of my tabs (no cookies or sessions, safety first) and the preboot environment would go away until the next boot.
Of course I'd have 3 options at boot, preboot environment only, normal windows/linux boot, and the combo described above.
All of this technological innovation would save me rougly 2 minutes a day, maybe. Though now, the morning routine is to turn on the computer, grab a cup of coffee, and come back to a ready and waiting system.
So, someone with enough knowledge as to which orientation the key will be encoded on can intercept it and generate a new photon with the same recorded information? Because, as you say, you can't record EVERYTHING about a photon at once, and you destroy it as you filter/record it, wouldn't the receiver destroy it as they filter/record it?
I know that you use a simplified example based on the polarity of the measurements, but if a nefarious evil party had the same equipment configured the same way as the true reciever, he/she could intercept the key and generate a new photon with a passable key?
If the distribution of the keys are based on known, shared configurations, aren't those configurations just a key used to decode/attack the secondary encryption layer of the key? (photon orientation).
I'm always amazed when I read about research into compilers and whatnot. Once upon a time, building computers weren't just a matter of arranging a series of blocks into a procedure and hoping if you OR'd 2 numbers, you'd get the right one out or applying Algorithm A to Problem B and getting optimal solution C.
I wonder if the bell labs researchers got the eureka moments when their applied research in compilers worked like the CERN physicists detect a theoretical particle.
I read an article about how they strapped special glasses onto owls that flipped the world upside down. They found that it took the owls a few days to kill prey perfectly, but they got to within 99% of their prior abilities with the glasses on in a relatively short time (like a few days).
When they took the glasses off the owls took a few hours to re-orient themselves to the original right side up orientation.
Its been like a decade since I read the article or saw the documentary, but I remember commentary about how if they applied it to humans, there would be a similar learning curve.
Who knows, if given enough time, they might not have needed to re-orient the points for the signal processing.
I also remember reading that the only thing that babies can make out visually are bright spots and faces, but that was in a facial recognition article about how the brain has a hardwired portion that flashes bright when a face appears in its vision. (Its why we like looking through photos with people in them).
Terrorist 1: Ok, i've printed out this map of the target, its a middleschool attended by 400 kids, if we crash a plane into it, we might be able to take half of it out and maybe kill 200 of the great satan's young.
Terrorist 2: Excellent, since we've taken over this plane in a post 9/11 environment where the average person who flies in a plane believes that if a terrorist takes over the plane, their lives are forfeit anyway, they had no problem revolting and attempting to kill us.
Terrorist 1: Yeah, that was rough, thanks be that we had our bottles of water to fight them off.
Terrorist 2: Don't forget our nail clippers and cuticle scissors! Anyway, I think our target should be over there, that's elm street. Aim between the soccer field and the baseball diamond.
Terrorist 1: Wait! That looks nothing like the picture! Its not blurred out like in the print out!
Terrorist 2: Drat, foiled again, CURSE YOU JOEL ANDERSON!!!!
I've prepared a few expert reports in my time, but IANAL, however, as satisfying/intimidating these reports may be, most of the time they'll be downplayed or ignored by the other side. In court, if you ignore it, unless the judge is on the other side, it DOES go away.
I'm waiting for the expert testimony, because anybody can type up 30 pages that equate to "Nuh-uh!" but judges sit up and take notice when someone sits in the witness chair and says "Nuh-uh!"
Essentially, what I'm saying is that while the slashdot community will rally around this news item, the legal community won't take notice until there's a precident.
IANAL, but i'll play dirty (as if I was a lawyer) and walk you through why that wouldn't work.
1. Microsoft, as a corporate entity would only need to supply a witness with sufficient relevant knowledge and/or duties relating to the patents. I.e. if the inventors are no longer inventing, they could bring in an intern who's maintaining the file system (or other tech grunt/manager), even if the inventor is currently a VP of file systems or some such title.
2. Scare tactic, unless you're bringing charges (costly and veeeeery hard to prove) against the inventor, it doesn't fall under the umbrella of the case at hand.
3. Bob the fat32 intern wouldn't know about prior art or the obviousness and would state the ever so annoying "I don't know".
4. Client attorney privilege is pretty much regarded as sacred, however, on the rare chance that they are forced to turn over this privilaged and confidential work product (another buzz word meaning 'you'll never get to see it, ever'), it might be gone forever unless its on paper or in email (and paper or email from 10-15 years ago is legally allowed to be purged in accordance with policy, Microsoft is not a bank) a simple "I can't recall" or "I'm sure I would not have {given advice to break the law}" would suffice to disarm the question.
5. See above.
6. Ok, done, so now what?
7. There, finally you're on to something, but I suppose you got this from a prior article on slashdot where a company put out a call to the technical community?
The internet will detect the damage and route around it. As if it was some sort of network of interconnected nodes designed to have multiple levels of potential redundancy in the case of a catastrophic, near apocalyptic event, such as a nuclear strike or something...
Slashdot Mirror
The what?
I ran my first virtual machine on an athlon 2200+ with 768 megs of ram. If it can run windows 7, you can run a VM or 3 (Depending on how heavy you want to get). Essentially take your computer, subtract the cycles and ram required to run the OS and background programs, that's the hardware you have left over to run the os. If the guest OS was compatible with your original hardware, chances are it'll work just fine in the OS.
You're not the first and you won't be the last, there was an article a while back pondering why so many techies were libertarians or had libertarian views.
Read up. http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/02/0310215
There's a difference between having enough canned foods to last you a week and having a bug out vehicle fully stocked and ready to take you to safety and support you along the way.
Correct, hence the digital survivalists comment. Society isn't falling apart yet, but people are preparing for any real life disaster that can come their way. The problems you stated above aren't happening yet, but the digital survivalists are preparing for any of the above "disasters" to come their way.
In a world without sharp objects, knives, or sidewalks, there would be no business case for bandaids. IPV6 is a solution to a problem that hasn't asserted itself. How often do you buy cough medicine when you haven't been sick in a while? This goes the same for ipv6. Until ISP's start charging more for ipv4 addresses due to scarcity, nobody is going to switch beyond digital survivalists and people who like to tinker with new technology.
Some counterfeit products stem from overruns. I.e. Lee commissions an order for 500 pairs of jeans from a factory, the factory gets sent 600 logos and makes 600 pairs of jeans. They get paid for the original 500 count jean order and then turn around and sell the real deal (same factory, same material and techniques, same quality, real logo) to the black market. Except the additional 100 pairs are counterfeit (Legally so).
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to prevent a legit buyer of a pair of the original 500 jeans from reselling their product... Lets lawyer up!
For its name, I nominate Splork!
Hi, Me again, by the way, even though your FILES may live entirely in the documents and settings/username folder, the page file, 4 out of 5 registry hives, and other forensically important data exists outside of the user folder which may be recoverable to a determined attacker with whole drive access.
I know its possible to make user directories private from within windows, and I'd be surprised if microsoft didn't have an existing policy for rolling out EFS (as stated above) to user folders.
If this is a single computer not on a network, why not use truecrypt to encrypt the entire drive? I have not noticed ANY slow down on any relatively modern system running whole drive encryption. Its a simple 45 minute process for less than 100gig drives.
I'm not familiar with any open source alternative to this, but you shouldn't have to look anywhere beyond the tools available on a windows active directory.
400 divided by 70 = 5.71.
I have no problem with you scheduling low-latency traffic over filesharing traffic, filtering, or whatever, but it seems a little short-sighted that it only takes 5.71 users to completely muck up your network. (I.E if you sell 1mbit connections, you could "theoretically" support 420 customers on a 6mibt pipe (6*70=420 at a 70:1 oversell ratio).
Red hat has given back to the community, how has google been bettered by infinite sms? Is there now a free "fedora core" sms gateway? Novell and Red Hat provided value without depriving the linux community of anything. Infinite SMS increased google's monthly bills without giving ANYTHING back. (Give vs Take). When you develop open source, you fix bugs, advertise, and raise awareness, everybody wins.
Perhaps you should have tried a car analogy because yours is broken.
Not just 3 numbers, festivities peak at 1:59.
You can approximate it on 22/7.
In 1994, I had a computer that came with a 14.4 modem, a pentium 75 mhz system and an 815 mbyte hard drive. In 1989, I had an IBM ps/2 with a 30 mb hard drive. I'd consider the range for 40-80mb hd's to be the very early 90's, and definitely the very early period of the 91-93 reign of the gopher protocol.
I suppose, but its also the digital equivalent of alchemy. In the eighties and ninetys, the sampled artists would most likely be listenable to on their own and the mix would be the sum of its parts. You could play the sampled artists at a party and not clear the dance floor.
However, in this case, he's pulling from wierd instrument solos and lessons as well as regular solos and stand-alone vocals, each, on its own would be barely watchable on the merits of musicality, but combining these baser parts with some tweaking, he came out with, well, "music gold". You play a guitar lesson youtube video, and all but guitar players and the like are bored, you could probably get away with playing some of the other mashups at a club of some sort and not get any complaints.
I suppose that this is just the kind of spark that you spend the first 15 seconds thinking "Wow, who would have thought of it?" And then spend the rest of the video realizing that it makes perfect sense. You take all of the individual artists, a guy with a web cam and some spare time, and combine them together into a one time use band or orchestra. We compile our kernels with individual modules, why not our music?
I have an asus mobo with the quickboot environment, I can browse the web and use skype (though i have yet to actually USE it), however, what would be more interesting to me would be to have this environment be persistent while windows boots in the background, install a driver in windows that sends a message over to the preboot/quickboot environment that says "Finished booting, would you like to move this browsing session over to windows?" I'd click yes, enter my username/password to be passed as login credentials and it would load firefox in the background with all of my tabs (no cookies or sessions, safety first) and the preboot environment would go away until the next boot.
Of course I'd have 3 options at boot, preboot environment only, normal windows/linux boot, and the combo described above.
All of this technological innovation would save me rougly 2 minutes a day, maybe. Though now, the morning routine is to turn on the computer, grab a cup of coffee, and come back to a ready and waiting system.
So, someone with enough knowledge as to which orientation the key will be encoded on can intercept it and generate a new photon with the same recorded information? Because, as you say, you can't record EVERYTHING about a photon at once, and you destroy it as you filter/record it, wouldn't the receiver destroy it as they filter/record it?
I know that you use a simplified example based on the polarity of the measurements, but if a nefarious evil party had the same equipment configured the same way as the true reciever, he/she could intercept the key and generate a new photon with a passable key?
If the distribution of the keys are based on known, shared configurations, aren't those configurations just a key used to decode/attack the secondary encryption layer of the key? (photon orientation).
I'm always amazed when I read about research into compilers and whatnot. Once upon a time, building computers weren't just a matter of arranging a series of blocks into a procedure and hoping if you OR'd 2 numbers, you'd get the right one out or applying Algorithm A to Problem B and getting optimal solution C.
I wonder if the bell labs researchers got the eureka moments when their applied research in compilers worked like the CERN physicists detect a theoretical particle.
I read an article about how they strapped special glasses onto owls that flipped the world upside down. They found that it took the owls a few days to kill prey perfectly, but they got to within 99% of their prior abilities with the glasses on in a relatively short time (like a few days).
When they took the glasses off the owls took a few hours to re-orient themselves to the original right side up orientation.
Its been like a decade since I read the article or saw the documentary, but I remember commentary about how if they applied it to humans, there would be a similar learning curve.
Who knows, if given enough time, they might not have needed to re-orient the points for the signal processing.
I also remember reading that the only thing that babies can make out visually are bright spots and faces, but that was in a facial recognition article about how the brain has a hardwired portion that flashes bright when a face appears in its vision. (Its why we like looking through photos with people in them).
Terrorist 1: Ok, i've printed out this map of the target, its a middleschool attended by 400 kids, if we crash a plane into it, we might be able to take half of it out and maybe kill 200 of the great satan's young.
Terrorist 2: Excellent, since we've taken over this plane in a post 9/11 environment where the average person who flies in a plane believes that if a terrorist takes over the plane, their lives are forfeit anyway, they had no problem revolting and attempting to kill us.
Terrorist 1: Yeah, that was rough, thanks be that we had our bottles of water to fight them off.
Terrorist 2: Don't forget our nail clippers and cuticle scissors! Anyway, I think our target should be over there, that's elm street. Aim between the soccer field and the baseball diamond.
Terrorist 1: Wait! That looks nothing like the picture! Its not blurred out like in the print out!
Terrorist 2: Drat, foiled again, CURSE YOU JOEL ANDERSON!!!!
I've prepared a few expert reports in my time, but IANAL, however, as satisfying/intimidating these reports may be, most of the time they'll be downplayed or ignored by the other side. In court, if you ignore it, unless the judge is on the other side, it DOES go away.
I'm waiting for the expert testimony, because anybody can type up 30 pages that equate to "Nuh-uh!" but judges sit up and take notice when someone sits in the witness chair and says "Nuh-uh!"
Essentially, what I'm saying is that while the slashdot community will rally around this news item, the legal community won't take notice until there's a precident.
IANAL, but i'll play dirty (as if I was a lawyer) and walk you through why that wouldn't work.
...Profit?
1. Microsoft, as a corporate entity would only need to supply a witness with sufficient relevant knowledge and/or duties relating to the patents. I.e. if the inventors are no longer inventing, they could bring in an intern who's maintaining the file system (or other tech grunt/manager), even if the inventor is currently a VP of file systems or some such title.
2. Scare tactic, unless you're bringing charges (costly and veeeeery hard to prove) against the inventor, it doesn't fall under the umbrella of the case at hand.
3. Bob the fat32 intern wouldn't know about prior art or the obviousness and would state the ever so annoying "I don't know".
4. Client attorney privilege is pretty much regarded as sacred, however, on the rare chance that they are forced to turn over this privilaged and confidential work product (another buzz word meaning 'you'll never get to see it, ever'), it might be gone forever unless its on paper or in email (and paper or email from 10-15 years ago is legally allowed to be purged in accordance with policy, Microsoft is not a bank) a simple "I can't recall" or "I'm sure I would not have {given advice to break the law}" would suffice to disarm the question.
5. See above.
6. Ok, done, so now what?
7. There, finally you're on to something, but I suppose you got this from a prior article on slashdot where a company put out a call to the technical community?
8.
The internet will detect the damage and route around it. As if it was some sort of network of interconnected nodes designed to have multiple levels of potential redundancy in the case of a catastrophic, near apocalyptic event, such as a nuclear strike or something...
Odd that...