I think a large part of why more people don't use HTTPS is because a:, the certificate problem, and b:, the fact you can't use named based virtual hosts if you do. It's totally crazy that encryption isn't a default part of all network communications. Screw creating new encrypted protocols for HTTP, FTP, MSN, Skype, IRC, RSH, RCP, POP, SMTP, etc, etc, etc, all with their own faults and issues. This should definitely be tackled at whatever layer is most pervasive, and that's IP.
I agree that.NET is excellent, and I'm a huge fan of C#, but if you want to get something that's about as good as VS.NET Express for PHP, Java, Perl, Python, and a large range of other languages (with debugging, project management, etc) check out Eclipse.
It's a nightmare to set up debugging with PHP, which is why many cave in and buy Zend Studio Pro for $299, so I wrote this text which helps walk people through it.
Now I don't feel the huge gap between IDEs for open languages and.NET languages.
As I understand it ZFS' design also doesn't fit well into Linux's abstract filesystem design, because of the different containers and whatnot, which makes it all the more difficult to port.
Putting gay porn on someone's myspace page, and making empty threats.. Without the sensationalist journalism it sounds less like a hardened domestic terrorist cell and more like a bunch of teenagers with too much time on their hands.
In cases like that you can just give the investigators your key/passphrase, so they can verify your innocence. I think the issue is about cases where the person being asked doesn't surrender the key/passphrase, or says they lost/deleted it.
The Tivo can usually pick up on them if they have mind penetrating artificial voice tones (the quirky female "omg I just discovered tampons" voice, or the deep growling "The New, Extreme, Holdeo Aston Martin. Now." voice), or if they have closeups of anything that's covered with lots of small water droplets.
Having a white background might well decrease power consumption, because it makes you more likely to turn the backlight down. Sitting in ambient settings as I am at the moment, with the relatively white/. background, my eyes feel strained if I don't turn the backlight down. I can look at gray sites with a full backlight with just about any lighting conditions.
"If only everyone just did *insert insignificant thing* we could save *insert large number* *insert something that's environmentally damaging to produce* per year"
Unless you have a significant amount of chips going all in is a better way of signalling that you have nothing. If you really had a good hand why not slow play it to try and get some chips out? If you're the kind of player that usually slow plays big hands an all in bet pre-flop will get other players salivating if they have even a moderately good hand.
I'd like to add that if you want to read GMail encrypted you can also use SMTP&POP3; GMail uses encryption for both protocols.
Oh and one more thing: I love the Slashdot doublethink: Having a large evil corporation (the ISP) possibly being able to sniff traffic to read some of my emails is a terrible invasion of my privacy!! Simultaneously: Having a large non-evil (because they said so) corporation (Google) actually store all my emails (much easier to get at them then trying to wire-sniff) and index them and use them to generate ads: SUPER! Well Google indexing my e-mails to generate ads is hardly a privacy issue, since they already have the e-mails stored. They're not storing any more private information if they index the e-mails as well as store them, and they have to store the e-mails of course, because that's the service we use them for.
I'd also like to say that putting laws on what these people should and shouldn't read just isn't enough. With regular mail you can put tamper proofs on envelopes, and it costs money to make copies, whereas this isn't true with digital information. The only way we're going to get true privacy for our digital information is encryption everywhere, by default, built in. Encrypted drives, encrypted IP protocol (I can't recall if IPv6 has this), everyone with their own (self-generated) keypair, etc.
This way no-one has to trust laws to protect their security.
On the one hand, I get it. Since the Linden actually has a conversion rate with "real" money, the gambling is gambling for "real" money and there are all kinds of laws about that, including last years I wonder if they could sue Linden for that if Linden aren't actually involved. They just exchange the money, it's up to the users to create and code the actual gambling locations.
They might instead require law enforcement to explicitly point out which users to remove, and drag their feet about it, like with torrents or slashdot posts, or any user generated/posted content. If I were Linden labs that's what I'd do, if it actually draws users and money like people say. (I wouldn't know, I've never been past the index page on secondlife and don't know why it gets so much publicity.)
Ye, since when was "copyleft" a comparative adjective, anyway? I think "We just think it's a great license...more copyleft...less restrictive" was CEO speak for "I haven't read it and I don't understand what a copyright license is (it's something technical). But my people in the know say we've changed ours because there's a new one out with go faster stripes, and my PR people tell me that if I make an announcement about it, it will get the company on/. and help me get a bigger bonus".
BTW, I do support this license move, just commenting on CEOs.
I am so glad I can copy your post for use in this quote without fear of being sued. I'm glad some people take the time and screen real-estate to explicitly place their post in the public domain.
But then the people using the beach will say "but I'm not the one littering! Why should I have to pay to clear it up?"
While so much money is being pumped into the global arms race I think it's silly to pinch pennies about keeping public property clean. (Though I do prefer less government spending as opposed to more, I think people have their priorities wrong.)
And the irony is: using a mobile phone (as most of the people complaining against masts do) exposes your brain to far more radiation than a mast. And the even bigger irony: if your campaign against a mast succeeds, your mobile phone will be transmitting much more powerfully to reach an unnecessarily distant mast.
They should homeopathic mobile phones. The public hate radiation but they love all natural homeopathy.
Or maybe instead of saying "electromagnetic radiation" is used, they should call it glowing starlight, and say that it affects your horoscope in positive ways.
Then people will be sunbathing underneath the masts and telling each other how much better the masts make them feel.
To be fair openssl and openssh are far more widely used than CVS. Also although in my opinion it's a waste of effort to rewrite GPL software under the BSD license that's the developer's choice, they can develop whatever they want. If they dislike the GPL code or the GPL license enough to want to rewrite it that's their business.
My post was talking about genetic engineering in general. People have responded as if my post had been explicitly in praise on Monsanto; they aren't the only company doing genetic engineering!
Actually, this planet is quite capable of supporting the billions that live here. It's typically the small *ruling class* percentage of those billions that control either the food or it's methods of delivery that cause starvation. It is, with agriculture. I only argued that it couldn't support the billions naturally. I seriously doubt an all-natural hunter gatherer lifestyle would support everyone on the planet.
Don't be naive. The whole "genetic engineering is just another form of selective breeding" argument is pure bunk. I never said it was, I only said that neither of them are natural. What is bunk is the widely held belief that a farmer with his combine 'arvester and ear 'o corn is a natural, one with the earth, age old arrangement.
Genetic engineering enables changes that would take multiple generations to create and then even more generations to attain wide-spread use to happen in the span of a single generation.
So if a particular inbred line of "walking udders" were to product deficient milk, the damage would be very localized before it was noticed and corrected. But a particular line of genetically engineered corn might make it into every box of breakfast cereal in the country for a couple of years running before people notice that it is shrinking the pensis of our youth. The proteins that get introduced into these plants pass through our digestive system, a protein isn't about to get through your digestive system in-tact and be able to do damage.
The worst I've heard a GM food doing is triggering an allergic reaction, and one that wasn't particularly severe. This was the main "it's bad for you" example trotted out in an anti-GM video, so I doubt it gets much worse than that.
Anyone who's scared of GM food making their penis fall off, or having any adverse health effect on them, is simply ignorant of what the differences are between GM and non-GM food. There are good arguments that can be made against GM food, but most are to do with patents.
Monsanto's own testing shows that the active ingredients in Roundup cause birth defects and other problems. Reference? If you're American you probably eat Monsanto Roundup Ready plants on a daily basis (unless you take care not to).
Just to reiterate that I was talking about GM foods in general, and arguing that they don't deserve to be called "frankenfoods". It's not all about Roundup&Monsanto, or about freeze-resistant tomatoes. e.g. I live in West Australia and around here we rely on GM wheat to survive in the dry conditions. As the climate changes (I'm tempted to write "if the climate changes") GM foods that can be adapted to changing environments at a faster pace will become very important.
GM foods definitely shouldn't be hysterically opposed, or even treated with unjust caution.
>Genetic engineering isn't "natural", but then again agriculture itself isn't "natural".
Really? Can you make a tomato that contains fish genes by traditional agriculture? Traditional agriculture? Agriculture has been around for a few thousand years, it's hardly the way of nature. It's hypocritical to say that cutting down loads of forests, mass producing crop monocultures that suck nutrients out of the soil, and dumping tonnes of fertilizers herbicides and pesticides on them is somehow more "natural" than genetic modification.
Neither artificial selection or genetic modification can exist in the wild, so they are both equally and entirely artificial.
(For the pedantic; I'm not considering symbiotic ant&fungi/ant&aphid relationships artificial selection, or viral DNA insertion genetic modification)
That doesn't necessarily make one inherently safer, but it does make "if it's not traditional agriculture it's no good" a bad argument without elaboration on exactly why one is worse than the other. (If there is a reason why one is better/less dangerous I have yet to hear it. I'm sure most of the people who read this message regularly eat GM food on a regular basis, even if they don't realize it.)
GM is not about feeding people. It's about starving people who can't afford to pay for your seeds. It's not about either, as well you know. The companies that make GM products do so to make money, and the farmers that buy it do so to increase yields (or to escape prosecution from Monsanto, but this is relatively rare despite being very concerning and unethical).
At the moment it appears that GM is not bad by itself but it is unprofitable unless you employ highly questionable business tactics. Good points, but my post doesn't contradict it. I was just arguing that genetic engineering isn't a bad thing in itself, I still think that Monsanto is the evil twin of Microsoft in the agriculture industry.
frankenfood Frankenfood? You mean food that doesn't need to be sprayed with (as much) pesticide because it's biologically resistant to insects?
Genetic engineers notice an organism that does something that would be useful in another organism. If possible they isolate the protein(s) that create the useful effect. They then isolate the DNA that expresses that protein. They then insert that DNA into the other organism, and the protein is subsequently produced in the other organism.
Genetic engineering is just a way of putting useful proteins from one organism into another. Agriculture on a modern scale doesn't stand a chance without either genetic engineering or massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticide.
Genetic engineering isn't "natural", but then again agriculture itself isn't "natural". If you consider genetic engineering a "frankenfood" what about the walking udders, walking fur coats, unnaturally sized fruits, bizarre inbred wolves, etc, etc. Just because that genetic engineering was done with artificial selection doesn't make it any less natural.
If you want natural; starve, along with the billions of others that this planet couldn't naturally support. I have no idea what people have against genetic engineering. (Though I completely understand anti-Monsanto sentiment of course)
I thought getting RISC going was better because it allowed the compiler to make all the decisions about instruction ordering and so on. At the moment the processor needs to do a lot of work to line everything up so that things can execute in the most efficient order, because the compiler doesn't have that kind of control. If the compiler did have such control it would be able to make better decisions than the processor about instruction ordering and branch prediction.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that .NET is excellent, and I'm a huge fan of C#, but if you want to get something that's about as good as VS.NET Express for PHP, Java, Perl, Python, and a large range of other languages (with debugging, project management, etc) check out Eclipse.
.NET languages.
It's a nightmare to set up debugging with PHP, which is why many cave in and buy Zend Studio Pro for $299, so I wrote this text which helps walk people through it.
Now I don't feel the huge gap between IDEs for open languages and
As I understand it ZFS' design also doesn't fit well into Linux's abstract filesystem design, because of the different containers and whatnot, which makes it all the more difficult to port.
Putting gay porn on someone's myspace page, and making empty threats.. Without the sensationalist journalism it sounds less like a hardened domestic terrorist cell and more like a bunch of teenagers with too much time on their hands.
So, you mean people are guilty, until proven innocent.
I'm not defending it..In cases like that you can just give the investigators your key/passphrase, so they can verify your innocence. I think the issue is about cases where the person being asked doesn't surrender the key/passphrase, or says they lost/deleted it.
The Tivo can usually pick up on them if they have mind penetrating artificial voice tones (the quirky female "omg I just discovered tampons" voice, or the deep growling "The New, Extreme, Holdeo Aston Martin. Now. " voice), or if they have closeups of anything that's covered with lots of small water droplets.
Having a white background might well decrease power consumption, because it makes you more likely to turn the backlight down. Sitting in ambient settings as I am at the moment, with the relatively white /. background, my eyes feel strained if I don't turn the backlight down. I can look at gray sites with a full backlight with just about any lighting conditions.
"If only everyone just did *insert insignificant thing* we could save *insert large number* *insert something that's environmentally damaging to produce* per year"
I bought two score condoms, to score.
Unless you have a significant amount of chips going all in is a better way of signalling that you have nothing. If you really had a good hand why not slow play it to try and get some chips out? If you're the kind of player that usually slow plays big hands an all in bet pre-flop will get other players salivating if they have even a moderately good hand.
Oh and one more thing: I love the Slashdot doublethink: Having a large evil corporation (the ISP) possibly being able to sniff traffic to read some of my emails is a terrible invasion of my privacy!! Simultaneously: Having a large non-evil (because they said so) corporation (Google) actually store all my emails (much easier to get at them then trying to wire-sniff) and index them and use them to generate ads: SUPER! Well Google indexing my e-mails to generate ads is hardly a privacy issue, since they already have the e-mails stored. They're not storing any more private information if they index the e-mails as well as store them, and they have to store the e-mails of course, because that's the service we use them for.
I'd also like to say that putting laws on what these people should and shouldn't read just isn't enough. With regular mail you can put tamper proofs on envelopes, and it costs money to make copies, whereas this isn't true with digital information. The only way we're going to get true privacy for our digital information is encryption everywhere, by default, built in. Encrypted drives, encrypted IP protocol (I can't recall if IPv6 has this), everyone with their own (self-generated) keypair, etc.
This way no-one has to trust laws to protect their security.
They might instead require law enforcement to explicitly point out which users to remove, and drag their feet about it, like with torrents or slashdot posts, or any user generated/posted content. If I were Linden labs that's what I'd do, if it actually draws users and money like people say. (I wouldn't know, I've never been past the index page on secondlife and don't know why it gets so much publicity.)
Ye, since when was "copyleft" a comparative adjective, anyway? I think "We just think it's a great license...more copyleft...less restrictive" was CEO speak for "I haven't read it and I don't understand what a copyright license is (it's something technical). But my people in the know say we've changed ours because there's a new one out with go faster stripes, and my PR people tell me that if I make an announcement about it, it will get the company on /. and help me get a bigger bonus".
BTW, I do support this license move, just commenting on CEOs.
I am so glad I can copy your post for use in this quote without fear of being sued. I'm glad some people take the time and screen real-estate to explicitly place their post in the public domain.But then the people using the beach will say "but I'm not the one littering! Why should I have to pay to clear it up?"
While so much money is being pumped into the global arms race I think it's silly to pinch pennies about keeping public property clean. (Though I do prefer less government spending as opposed to more, I think people have their priorities wrong.)
And the irony is: using a mobile phone (as most of the people complaining against masts do) exposes your brain to far more radiation than a mast. And the even bigger irony: if your campaign against a mast succeeds, your mobile phone will be transmitting much more powerfully to reach an unnecessarily distant mast.
They should homeopathic mobile phones. The public hate radiation but they love all natural homeopathy.Or maybe instead of saying "electromagnetic radiation" is used, they should call it glowing starlight, and say that it affects your horoscope in positive ways.
Then people will be sunbathing underneath the masts and telling each other how much better the masts make them feel.
To be fair openssl and openssh are far more widely used than CVS. Also although in my opinion it's a waste of effort to rewrite GPL software under the BSD license that's the developer's choice, they can develop whatever they want. If they dislike the GPL code or the GPL license enough to want to rewrite it that's their business.
My post was talking about genetic engineering in general. People have responded as if my post had been explicitly in praise on Monsanto; they aren't the only company doing genetic engineering!
So if a particular inbred line of "walking udders" were to product deficient milk, the damage would be very localized before it was noticed and corrected. But a particular line of genetically engineered corn might make it into every box of breakfast cereal in the country for a couple of years running before people notice that it is shrinking the pensis of our youth. The proteins that get introduced into these plants pass through our digestive system, a protein isn't about to get through your digestive system in-tact and be able to do damage.
The worst I've heard a GM food doing is triggering an allergic reaction, and one that wasn't particularly severe. This was the main "it's bad for you" example trotted out in an anti-GM video, so I doubt it gets much worse than that.
Anyone who's scared of GM food making their penis fall off, or having any adverse health effect on them, is simply ignorant of what the differences are between GM and non-GM food. There are good arguments that can be made against GM food, but most are to do with patents.
Just to reiterate that I was talking about GM foods in general, and arguing that they don't deserve to be called "frankenfoods". It's not all about Roundup&Monsanto, or about freeze-resistant tomatoes. e.g. I live in West Australia and around here we rely on GM wheat to survive in the dry conditions. As the climate changes (I'm tempted to write "if the climate changes") GM foods that can be adapted to changing environments at a faster pace will become very important.
GM foods definitely shouldn't be hysterically opposed, or even treated with unjust caution.
Really? Can you make a tomato that contains fish genes by traditional agriculture? Traditional agriculture? Agriculture has been around for a few thousand years, it's hardly the way of nature. It's hypocritical to say that cutting down loads of forests, mass producing crop monocultures that suck nutrients out of the soil, and dumping tonnes of fertilizers herbicides and pesticides on them is somehow more "natural" than genetic modification.
Neither artificial selection or genetic modification can exist in the wild, so they are both equally and entirely artificial.
(For the pedantic; I'm not considering symbiotic ant&fungi/ant&aphid relationships artificial selection, or viral DNA insertion genetic modification)
That doesn't necessarily make one inherently safer, but it does make "if it's not traditional agriculture it's no good" a bad argument without elaboration on exactly why one is worse than the other. (If there is a reason why one is better/less dangerous I have yet to hear it. I'm sure most of the people who read this message regularly eat GM food on a regular basis, even if they don't realize it.)
GM is not about feeding people. It's about starving people who can't afford to pay for your seeds. It's not about either, as well you know. The companies that make GM products do so to make money, and the farmers that buy it do so to increase yields (or to escape prosecution from Monsanto, but this is relatively rare despite being very concerning and unethical).
Genetic engineers notice an organism that does something that would be useful in another organism. If possible they isolate the protein(s) that create the useful effect. They then isolate the DNA that expresses that protein. They then insert that DNA into the other organism, and the protein is subsequently produced in the other organism.
Genetic engineering is just a way of putting useful proteins from one organism into another. Agriculture on a modern scale doesn't stand a chance without either genetic engineering or massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticide.
Genetic engineering isn't "natural", but then again agriculture itself isn't "natural". If you consider genetic engineering a "frankenfood" what about the walking udders, walking fur coats, unnaturally sized fruits, bizarre inbred wolves, etc, etc. Just because that genetic engineering was done with artificial selection doesn't make it any less natural.
If you want natural; starve, along with the billions of others that this planet couldn't naturally support. I have no idea what people have against genetic engineering. (Though I completely understand anti-Monsanto sentiment of course)
I thought getting RISC going was better because it allowed the compiler to make all the decisions about instruction ordering and so on. At the moment the processor needs to do a lot of work to line everything up so that things can execute in the most efficient order, because the compiler doesn't have that kind of control. If the compiler did have such control it would be able to make better decisions than the processor about instruction ordering and branch prediction.
At least, that's what I thought.
Maddox's take on the iPhone