In any case the "modern websites" demand is sorta baseless - what features of modern websites demands high bandwidth? Flash intros? Unless you're downloading ISOs or getting Windows Update files, it really is barely different.
You use the people's bandwidth you download from. It's only fair if you give something back, fucking leecher.
It'd be nice if BitTorrent evened things out - I'm on a fairly fast connection, and virtually every time I've used BT, my end download sum is _vastly_ lower than my upload sum - like 1/10. BitTorrent, the `official' client, basically forces you to support leechers using alternate clients.
...I'm a government contractor...Coke cans are no longer allowed...risk of the "Coke Team" hearing the beacon and showing up unexpectedly.
It's an excellent safety measure - otherwise an international war could be triggered, unleashing the vast military caramel forces of the Coca-Cola corporation. The forces are spread too thin to deal with this right now.
Actually a large part of the foreboding government presence in 1984 was the public surveillance - wherever you walked you could be sure that the man was watching you. Why do you think he headed out to the countryside to do a booty call?
Interestingly we have entirely the opposite opinions on the terminology - I have always perceived a "framework" as being a standard class library, and when I hear.NET Framework I think of only the class library. I consider the CLR the platform that the framework happens to target. Microsoft screwed the pooch with the terminology of that.
Just to clarify, the following is the definition of the.NET Framework per MSDN:
"The.NET Framework has two main components: the common language runtime and the.NET Framework class library. The common language runtime is the foundation of the.NET Framework. You can think of the runtime as an agent that manages code at execution time, providing core services such as memory management, thread management, and remoting, while also enforcing strict type safety and other forms of code accuracy that promote security and robustness. In fact, the concept of code management is a fundamental principle of the runtime. Code that targets the runtime is known as managed code, while code that does not target the runtime is known as unmanaged code. The class library, the other main component of the.NET Framework, is a comprehensive, object-oriented collection of reusable types that you can use to develop applications ranging from traditional command-line or graphical user interface (GUI) applications to applications based on the latest innovations provided by ASP.NET, such as Web Forms and XML Web services."
It's generic memory. In the grand scheme of things the difference between the high and low end will be marginal in real world benchmarks (i.e. games, office benchmarks) -- it's only in extreme memory stress tests that any difference at all is revealed.
Though note that you dual-channel kit will likely come with two 256MB modules. You probably knew this, but I mention it just in case.
Way back when the demo for Duke Nukem 3D came out months in advance of the real thing. Once it was really released myself and my friends were long since bored of it and had moved on to bigger and better things.
This isn't about teens, and I think anyone who tried a technique like this on teens would be in for a highly personal battle (not to mention, as you stated, that it undermines any trust relationships). This is about younger children, say 5-9.
No, I didn't miss the point. This discussion wasn't about cars, popsicles, or aircraft carriers - it was about RFIDs to track children, and it is entirely possible that the original thread poster believes that popsicles, aircraft carriers and cars should also be banned.
When in doubt, assert the naivete and ignorance of your opponents
I didn't make that statement degradingly (nor did I state anything about ignorance), but rather I truly believe that there is a large portion of the current Slashdot readership that actually personally, directly feels threatened by this because of their young age - the defensiveness wouldn't be seen in, say, a more mature board. Imagine if you went to RacerBoyzWithBigSubwoofers.com to discuss whether noise control bylaws should be enforced against cars with loud stereos - do you think you'd get a rational, even discussion?
Uh, no that would be a solution to an entirely different problem (and there are plenty of activities underway to improve the safety of cars and our roadways - they didn't sit around scratching their ass because even more kids are dying in Africa of malaria). Ultimately that is a futile point to debate - "Donate food to the local homeless shelter? No way - there's people in Africa starving even more!" "Feed my kid less transfats? BS! There's more kids dying in car accidents!"
This is a futile point to debate on Slashdot - ultimately about 50% of the posters are 15 year olds afraid that Daddy is going to put a RFID baseball cap on them, hence the hyper polarized fear mongering.
Young children are under constant tracking by adults - this is a simple fact of life. This is simply a more efficient method that doesn't have the gaps that human monitoring does. I really don't see it as being that revolutionary.
I carry around my cell phone all day, every day, always within about 20' of me and on. I know, as do many others, that most cell providers have radio triangulation down to a highly precise distance (Bell Canada allows you to use a service to find out where one of your family plan phones are...or at least they beta'd it). I personal don't give a sh*t.
While this story may get your YRO glands frothing, I think you need to step back a bit and get your rants in order a bit.
RFID has a rather short range - maybe a couple of feet. It can be detected going through a door or a gate, but it isn't some omnipotent all-seeing device. If you're honestly proposing that bad people are going to sneak into a school and snoop around with an RFID... god, what's the point. Put the tinfoil hat back on.
`Personally, I'd almost rather teach my children self defense and how to handle unknowns in the world, than to rely on a removable tracking tag for their "safety". They'll be better off for knowing that.'
Did I miss the part of the article where they said that these two are mutually exclusive?
Putting an RFID wristband on your 8 year old does absolutely nothing to impede or degrade their quality of life, but on the upside it tremendously improves their safety (not to mention their parent's mental well-being).
I personally wouldn't mind. Presuming that the data was secured from monitoring by nefarious agents, in that all data is encrypted and can't be retrieved without a public court order for a specific location/time, I would have absolutely no problem with such a system.
In any case, it's an absurd derivative - the story is about the monitoring of children. In most societies children don't have freedom of movement (and their anonymity isn't necessary to maintain democracy), and this represents nothing more than a more efficient variant of the adult supervision that already occurs. While the origin of this thread mention that this would only happen in Japan, I guarantee that there would be concerned parents lining up to sign their children up.
"If you're too lazy to use the buttons at the top, or keyboard shortcuts. Then lack of mouse gestures is the least of your problems"
YEAH, SCrew efficiency! sorry about losing the caps there, but I'm pedaling this bike as hard as I can and can't create enough juice. Damn lazy bastards with your plug in electri
Actually Microsoft was a very infrequent user of the patent office a few years back, and actually seemed like a pretty upstanding intellectual property citizen (they were making boatloads of money anyways at a steadily increasing pace, so perhaps it seemed just too greedy to try to use patents to bully money out of new entrants in the market). This aggressive patent position is the sort of thing that people warned about a few years back - as the Windows dominance came under threat (not as much by Linux as by the ubiquitous web), and Microsoft finds it harder to compete with older versions of their own software (the biggest competitor to Office 2003 isn't OpenOffice, but rather is Office XP, 2000, 97, etc.), the easy money is harder to come by. The scenario the paranoid painted was that now would be the time that the screws start to get turned, and patents are one of the screwdrivers.
Since the patch existed before any known use of the exploit, the blame is squarely on the shoulders of two groups: (1) the malware author(s) themselves; and, (2) the lazy sysetm administrator too slow or stupid to deploy the patch in a timely manner.
Firstly, there is no definitive conclusion on whether MS04-011-patched systems are safe or not -- it is a presumption that they are not. Secondly the SSL problem fixed by MS04-011 was defined as a "potential denial-of-service" problem, not a remote-code-execution exploit. Thirdly in the real-world many admins find their system vulnerable because the Windows install system is inconsistent -- fully patch up your machine, install an IIS feature and it pulls old files from the CD, and suddenly you have a frankenstein machine that is an unknown quantity. This has caused many admins in the past to be caught offguard.
Ultimately I wouldn't be as quick to toss people onto the ignoramus pile.
WHY would bush lie about WMD's? So that in 6 months time when WMD's weren't found, the public would love him for it?
Actually the American public was highly supportive of the war even after the search for WMDs seemed dubious -- by then the administration had carefully shifted the war to be about saving the Iraqi people from an evil tyrant (WMD became a footnote long ago). In fact careful news releases led to most Americans believing that WMDs WERE found (front page "chemical weapons found!", following by a hidden "oh, it was just a milk truck" days later). The only reason that the war has turned sour has been the cost, in American lives, started to weigh down the campaign.
It is entirely conceivable that the administration would intentionally lie about WMDs under the old theory of "easier to ask forgiveness later".
I'm entirely with you on the Afghanistan thing, though -- if the grandparent truly thinks Afghanistan had nothing to do with terrorism then clearly they're a lost cause.
Two countries? Are you seriously implying that Afghanistan, run by the Taliban (you know - the people currently killing people for registering to vote), had "nothing to do with terrorism"? If this is the case you're making, you're in very little company as few doubt the intense involvement of the Taliban with terrorism.
The real tragedy of the invasion of Iraq is that Bush took a legitimate, powerful precendent against terrorism (that any nation that aided terrorists would pay the price) and completely diluted it by sneaking his own personal mission in under the auspices of it. While a lot of eyes are being opened belatedly now, but there were a lot of cynical people asking WTF Iraq had to do with 9/11 or Afghanistan long ago, but amazingly the American public came to believe that it was all one and same. This completely destroyed the anti-terrorism campaign in the world's eyes. Now that we've seen that some absolutely insane individuals in the administration think they can get away with an end run around the Geneva convention (as Ronald Reagan's own son calls it dismissively of the Bush administration), global support has absolutely disappeared, and even if another major terrorist attack occurred few around the globe would trust or believe US intelligence (which seems to just say whatever serves their agenda), or would support US operations. Bush entirely holds the blame for this.
"Javascript and HTML are inherently insecure. With the Longhorn Windows 2007 Operating System we are offering some advanced new features that will enhance your browsing experience.
XAML - New, secure layouts!
Avalon - Vector Graphics
.NET No-Touch Deploys. Rich clients!
We hope the public has learned about the dangers of the standard web from these exploits, and embraces these new standards.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the big feature of WiFi is the Wi part.
In any case the "modern websites" demand is sorta baseless - what features of modern websites demands high bandwidth? Flash intros? Unless you're downloading ISOs or getting Windows Update files, it really is barely different.
You use the people's bandwidth you download from. It's only fair if you give something back, fucking leecher.
It'd be nice if BitTorrent evened things out - I'm on a fairly fast connection, and virtually every time I've used BT, my end download sum is _vastly_ lower than my upload sum - like 1/10. BitTorrent, the `official' client, basically forces you to support leechers using alternate clients.
An awful lot of people do have access to the Windows sourcecode, and that recently significantly expanded with the addition of Microsoft MVPs.
s p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1624877,00.a
MVPs, for the record, are just people who frequently answered questions correctly in the Microsoft newsgroups.
Hell I'm surprized this franchise is still going on - I was sure that number III came and went a few years ago. What a dud of a series.
...I'm a government contractor...Coke cans are no longer allowed...risk of the "Coke Team" hearing the beacon and showing up unexpectedly.
It's an excellent safety measure - otherwise an international war could be triggered, unleashing the vast military caramel forces of the Coca-Cola corporation. The forces are spread too thin to deal with this right now.
Actually a large part of the foreboding government presence in 1984 was the public surveillance - wherever you walked you could be sure that the man was watching you. Why do you think he headed out to the countryside to do a booty call?
Interestingly we have entirely the opposite opinions on the terminology - I have always perceived a "framework" as being a standard class library, and when I hear .NET Framework I think of only the class library. I consider the CLR the platform that the framework happens to target. Microsoft screwed the pooch with the terminology of that.
Just to clarify, the following is the definition of the .NET Framework per MSDN:
.NET Framework has two main components: the common language runtime and the .NET Framework class library. The common language runtime is the foundation of the .NET Framework. You can think of the runtime as an agent that manages code at execution time, providing core services such as memory management, thread management, and remoting, while also enforcing strict type safety and other forms of code accuracy that promote security and robustness. In fact, the concept of code management is a fundamental principle of the runtime. Code that targets the runtime is known as managed code, while code that does not target the runtime is known as unmanaged code. The class library, the other main component of the .NET Framework, is a comprehensive, object-oriented collection of reusable types that you can use to develop applications ranging from traditional command-line or graphical user interface (GUI) applications to applications based on the latest innovations provided by ASP.NET, such as Web Forms and XML Web services."
"The
Cheers.
It's generic memory. In the grand scheme of things the difference between the high and low end will be marginal in real world benchmarks (i.e. games, office benchmarks) -- it's only in extreme memory stress tests that any difference at all is revealed.
Though note that you dual-channel kit will likely come with two 256MB modules. You probably knew this, but I mention it just in case.
Cheers.
Way back when the demo for Duke Nukem 3D came out months in advance of the real thing. Once it was really released myself and my friends were long since bored of it and had moved on to bigger and better things.
This isn't about teens, and I think anyone who tried a technique like this on teens would be in for a highly personal battle (not to mention, as you stated, that it undermines any trust relationships). This is about younger children, say 5-9.
I think you missed the point.
No, I didn't miss the point. This discussion wasn't about cars, popsicles, or aircraft carriers - it was about RFIDs to track children, and it is entirely possible that the original thread poster believes that popsicles, aircraft carriers and cars should also be banned.
When in doubt, assert the naivete and ignorance of your opponents
I didn't make that statement degradingly (nor did I state anything about ignorance), but rather I truly believe that there is a large portion of the current Slashdot readership that actually personally, directly feels threatened by this because of their young age - the defensiveness wouldn't be seen in, say, a more mature board. Imagine if you went to RacerBoyzWithBigSubwoofers.com to discuss whether noise control bylaws should be enforced against cars with loud stereos - do you think you'd get a rational, even discussion?
You really shouldn't try to prop up an incredibly weak point with AC postings.
As an aside, I really don't think you need to worry as much about this - 15 year olds like yourself aren't the target of it.
So, one solution would be to ban cars.
Uh, no that would be a solution to an entirely different problem (and there are plenty of activities underway to improve the safety of cars and our roadways - they didn't sit around scratching their ass because even more kids are dying in Africa of malaria). Ultimately that is a futile point to debate - "Donate food to the local homeless shelter? No way - there's people in Africa starving even more!" "Feed my kid less transfats? BS! There's more kids dying in car accidents!"
This is a futile point to debate on Slashdot - ultimately about 50% of the posters are 15 year olds afraid that Daddy is going to put a RFID baseball cap on them, hence the hyper polarized fear mongering.
Young children are under constant tracking by adults - this is a simple fact of life. This is simply a more efficient method that doesn't have the gaps that human monitoring does. I really don't see it as being that revolutionary.
I carry around my cell phone all day, every day, always within about 20' of me and on. I know, as do many others, that most cell providers have radio triangulation down to a highly precise distance (Bell Canada allows you to use a service to find out where one of your family plan phones are...or at least they beta'd it). I personal don't give a sh*t.
While this story may get your YRO glands frothing, I think you need to step back a bit and get your rants in order a bit.
RFID has a rather short range - maybe a couple of feet. It can be detected going through a door or a gate, but it isn't some omnipotent all-seeing device. If you're honestly proposing that bad people are going to sneak into a school and snoop around with an RFID... god, what's the point. Put the tinfoil hat back on.
`Personally, I'd almost rather teach my children self defense and how to handle unknowns in the world, than to rely on a removable tracking tag for their "safety". They'll be better off for knowing that.'
Did I miss the part of the article where they said that these two are mutually exclusive?
Your argument is an absurd fallacy.
Putting an RFID wristband on your 8 year old does absolutely nothing to impede or degrade their quality of life, but on the upside it tremendously improves their safety (not to mention their parent's mental well-being).
I personally wouldn't mind. Presuming that the data was secured from monitoring by nefarious agents, in that all data is encrypted and can't be retrieved without a public court order for a specific location/time, I would have absolutely no problem with such a system.
In any case, it's an absurd derivative - the story is about the monitoring of children. In most societies children don't have freedom of movement (and their anonymity isn't necessary to maintain democracy), and this represents nothing more than a more efficient variant of the adult supervision that already occurs. While the origin of this thread mention that this would only happen in Japan, I guarantee that there would be concerned parents lining up to sign their children up.
"If you're too lazy to use the buttons at the top, or keyboard shortcuts. Then lack of mouse gestures is the least of your problems"
YEAH, SCrew efficiency! sorry about losing the caps there, but I'm pedaling this bike as hard as I can and can't create enough juice. Damn lazy bastards with your plug in electri
Actually Microsoft was a very infrequent user of the patent office a few years back, and actually seemed like a pretty upstanding intellectual property citizen (they were making boatloads of money anyways at a steadily increasing pace, so perhaps it seemed just too greedy to try to use patents to bully money out of new entrants in the market). This aggressive patent position is the sort of thing that people warned about a few years back - as the Windows dominance came under threat (not as much by Linux as by the ubiquitous web), and Microsoft finds it harder to compete with older versions of their own software (the biggest competitor to Office 2003 isn't OpenOffice, but rather is Office XP, 2000, 97, etc.), the easy money is harder to come by. The scenario the paranoid painted was that now would be the time that the screws start to get turned, and patents are one of the screwdrivers.
Since the patch existed before any known use of the exploit, the blame is squarely on the shoulders of two groups: (1) the malware author(s) themselves; and, (2) the lazy sysetm administrator too slow or stupid to deploy the patch in a timely manner.
Firstly, there is no definitive conclusion on whether MS04-011-patched systems are safe or not -- it is a presumption that they are not. Secondly the SSL problem fixed by MS04-011 was defined as a "potential denial-of-service" problem, not a remote-code-execution exploit. Thirdly in the real-world many admins find their system vulnerable because the Windows install system is inconsistent -- fully patch up your machine, install an IIS feature and it pulls old files from the CD, and suddenly you have a frankenstein machine that is an unknown quantity. This has caused many admins in the past to be caught offguard.
Ultimately I wouldn't be as quick to toss people onto the ignoramus pile.
WHY would bush lie about WMD's? So that in 6 months time when WMD's weren't found, the public would love him for it?
Actually the American public was highly supportive of the war even after the search for WMDs seemed dubious -- by then the administration had carefully shifted the war to be about saving the Iraqi people from an evil tyrant (WMD became a footnote long ago). In fact careful news releases led to most Americans believing that WMDs WERE found (front page "chemical weapons found!", following by a hidden "oh, it was just a milk truck" days later). The only reason that the war has turned sour has been the cost, in American lives, started to weigh down the campaign.
It is entirely conceivable that the administration would intentionally lie about WMDs under the old theory of "easier to ask forgiveness later".
I'm entirely with you on the Afghanistan thing, though -- if the grandparent truly thinks Afghanistan had nothing to do with terrorism then clearly they're a lost cause.
Two countries? Are you seriously implying that Afghanistan, run by the Taliban (you know - the people currently killing people for registering to vote), had "nothing to do with terrorism"? If this is the case you're making, you're in very little company as few doubt the intense involvement of the Taliban with terrorism.
The real tragedy of the invasion of Iraq is that Bush took a legitimate, powerful precendent against terrorism (that any nation that aided terrorists would pay the price) and completely diluted it by sneaking his own personal mission in under the auspices of it. While a lot of eyes are being opened belatedly now, but there were a lot of cynical people asking WTF Iraq had to do with 9/11 or Afghanistan long ago, but amazingly the American public came to believe that it was all one and same. This completely destroyed the anti-terrorism campaign in the world's eyes. Now that we've seen that some absolutely insane individuals in the administration think they can get away with an end run around the Geneva convention (as Ronald Reagan's own son calls it dismissively of the Bush administration), global support has absolutely disappeared, and even if another major terrorist attack occurred few around the globe would trust or believe US intelligence (which seems to just say whatever serves their agenda), or would support US operations. Bush entirely holds the blame for this.
"Javascript and HTML are inherently insecure. With the Longhorn Windows 2007 Operating System we are offering some advanced new features that will enhance your browsing experience.
We hope the public has learned about the dangers of the standard web from these exploits, and embraces these new standards.
Transmission ended."