What's scarier are his comments about how she'll be be turning 17 while in NY and will be the age of legal consent; and how she's already legal "across the pond". Sounds like a friggin' pediofile to me.
And I thought it was just odd that this came from the USPTO. I'm surprised no one else commented on the out-of-context subject matter. Does this have anything to do with patents? Doesn't seem like it. Did our tax dollars just get used for this? Most likely. Would I like to see anyone that approved the time to create this report be extradited? Oh yea!
A friend of mine from China told me about how video games are viewed negatively there. He told me this about 10 years ago, actually. He recalled a public service announcement where children and parents are warned about people that inject highly addictive drugs into people while they're at the arcade to get them "hooked". Apparently the arcade games over there are so intense, you wouldn't notice someone sticking a needle in you. And to think, they haven't made Go illegal.
Smart. I've been going through hell with Ubuntu. I'm sure all distros suck for one reason or another, but I've never had Fedora hose my system like Ubuntu has (twice).
I know what you mean. I installed Ubuntu a year ago after not having used Linux in almost 10 years. I was pretty impressed, but twice now, I have upgraded (once from Badger to Dapper), and one was a kernel upgrade that appeared with the automatic notification, with disastrous results. Both of those upgrades made my system a mess. This last one, the kernel upgrade, has made it so I can't login because it can't see my home folder. I'm still trying to figure out how to get it back to normal (or at least get my data).
For the past year I have also used Fedora Core 5 at work. I never had problems with it. Yea, I've chased a few dependencies, but at least I still have all my data! I'm really going to miss Synaptic (GUI for apt-get), but if my system gets hosed twice a year because Ubuntu developers don't know how to make a proper upgrade, then I won't miss it that much.
Except we already do this with diesel. And a few places are doing it now with other fuels. Yes, there are more "pieces" to deal with, but it's hardly an issue since we're already doing it to some degree. It could easily start by regions having what is needed based on what type of energy is generated there. Then each type could "fan-out" as product and demand spread.
If the methane distributor is coming to town, and the vegetable oil distributor is also, then what's the big deal. In fact, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the current energy distributors would take this on (meaning the methane and veggie oil distributor would be the same). Seems like Bob and Suzy could easily be taken care of.
Ok, so what if our short-term solution depletes our natural gas supply entirely in 3-5 years (very possible, depending on scale of adoption). Then we crawl back to the Mid-East and have no way of heating many US homes? How is natural gas renewable, btw? That's new to me.
Electricity, as you mentioned. Which can be generated via wind, solar, geothermal, or all of the above. Hydrogen, obtained through electricity (generated by the previously mentioned methods). Pressurized air, biodiesel, grease/veg oil (already being used). Hemp hurds, processed into solid/liquid/gas fuels through pyrolysis. Alcohol (methanol, not ethanol).
With some of these methods the only argument I've heard is, "You couldn't possibly exchange all of our current petroleum consumption with X". Which is true in almost every case. I think the solution is to start adopting as many clean (and sensible) methods as possible to diminish our current "dirty" paradigm, and to become more self-reliant on our energy needs.
If using hydrogen can only handle 10% of the population, great, that's 10% less. What if alcohol can take care of 5% more? Biodiesel 30% more? Right there we're at 45% reduction in petroleum dependency, even if they could only handle 5% each it would still help.
I understand that, but doing so with a fuel source that is already more scarce than what we are currently using. If I can power a vehicle with Dodo birds great, but if there aren't any, then my work would be mostly a waste of time.
Actually, from the data that I've seen, the natural gas supplies are far worse than our petroleum supply. If there's a new resource we should turn to, it should at least be more abundant than what we currently have. That is, unless we're able to use it so efficiently that we don't need as much.
In most alternative-fuel cases the same engine we use today is still used, the same amount of explosion is required, so the efficiency hasn't changed (or is usually less than what gasoline can do).
Why are these people bothering with fossil fuels anyway? Seems like a big waste of time considering how many alternatives are out there that will either work in a limited capacity initially, or are very close to becoming a reality.
...his conclusion is that aliens can't have had time required to find us yet."
Under what time frame? If an alien race has had advanced technology for 100,000,000 Trillion years, then they'd have plenty of time (and would probably have technology more advanced then sending out physical "probes"). It doesn't see likely from what we know, but I don't think we actually know that much.
Why is it that scientists think that only what we can achieve is possible? It's like us looking for aliens using our technology (SETI). Not that it's impossible, but I'd think other intelligent being could come up with other forms of communication than our own; even if it wasn't more "advanced".
As I had mentioned a few times in this discussion, there is a link to a "print" version. However, to answer your question, it seems to me that the messages know what direction to go, just not the details of the final destination. The article is more conceptual than nutz-n-boltz, but I'm sure some info digging on the subject of their "dieselnet" will give you the finer technical details.
This is different in that the final destination address might not be known.
From the article... In a DTN, messages can be launched from a source node even though the final destination IP address can't be known due to disruptions of name servers or routers.
First off, this isn't software, and he's not "releasing a malicious tool". Yea, the web-page generates a fake boarding pass, but I see this more as a proof-of-concept for the inexperienced. As someone mentioned earlier, this could have also been done with a photocopier (and a myriad of other methods).
This whole thing (war against terror, "security" for freedom, TSA practices) is political. He's just keeping this in the arena that it started in. As if he had created a solution*, how would you expect him to "give the ability" to correct it.
The best way I can see to do that is to make a big enough stink about it that someone notices.
Give TSA employees scanners/computers, so that they can verify the validity of the boarding passes when you reach the security checkpoint. This is currently only done at the gate.
Do NOT allow people to print out boarding passes online. They're far too easy to spoof.
Stop assumming that just because you know who someone is, you know if they're a terrorist or not. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were not on the no-fly list, and none of the recent London liquid bomb-plot guys were on the no-fly list.
the most influential thing we can do is get modded +5 Insightful for insulting them on Slashdot.
How about flooding his Inbox with letters of reason? I came close to direct insults in my letter, but decided that it might be easier tossed out. Instead I added a way for him to redeem himself. If enough people do the same, he just might do it.
I just read about your response to Christopher Soghoian's findings regarding online printable boarding passes being easily faked.
I have to say that I am appalled at what I am reading. Mr. Soghoian has found something that could allow terrorist to continue to harm Americans. This technique may have already been used, or plan to be used, but now we know about it and can do something about it.
Why? Because Mr. Soghoian was kind enough to expose this security flaw. Punishing someone that has put this much effort into giving us the knowledge to save more lives is asinine.
As a Quality Assurance Engineer, I know the importance of finding, and reporting, flaws. This man should be commended, not condemned.
I think it would be wise as a senior member of the Department for Homeland Security to withdraw your previous statements as you have gained "an insightful perspective" on this issue after responses such as mine.
Scaring others into not telling us where our security flaws are will only lead to more opportunities for our enemies. How can you not immediately see this?
Or should I put you on the list of government employees that pretend like they care, but would rather play political games instead?
Sincerely,
Quincunx (real name used in the real letter)
I encourage others to write as well. If we let him know his error, give him an "out", then maybe bullshit like this won't happen again. Here's hoping.
Here's the send-an-email part of Honorable Edward Markey's web page
Is Oracle really that superior to Ingres, Sybase, Microsoft SQL Server, and especially PostgreSQL or MySQL?
Well, it's not a matter of Oracle's db being "superior" to the others that you mentioned. Oracle is one of the largest software development companies in existance. I haven't looked recently, but the top four usually consist of MS, SAP, Oracle, and IBM. Oracle is in direct competition with SAP. When you buy Oracle, you're not just buying a program that stores and retreives tables. They can integrate into every part of your company, no matter how large (HR, manufacturing, AR, AP, inventory, shipping, you name it). Companies spend millions (usually just over 1 mil, under 10 mil) just to implement Oracle into their company processes, and that usually takes a year or more to take place; then you start training your staff. That doesn't include the cost of the system itself. So 160,000 for a license compared to the 5-20 million you'll spend getting Oracle up and running for your ERP solutions isn't as big as it seems to the rest of us.
The work that we delivered in IE7 simply has more positive impact and makes web developers' jobs easier than making an arbitrary (if terribly clever) web page render the way its author intended.
...snip...
The question here isn't whether we want to support those features or if we understand that web developers want them (we do), but simply prioritization. We focused on web developers' real world problems.
So what he's saying is, "We hear the web developers, understand what they are asking for, have the resources to solve their delima, but choose to focus on other areas that MS feels is more important to web developers." The end of the first quote above is what really pissed me off. They don't think it's a priority for the web page to render the way the author intended? Now I know what I've been doing wrong all these years! I should develop my web apps/pages to render differently than I expect! Geesh!
I'm still confused as to these "real world problems" he's talking about. If nearly every web developer out there has been screaming about standards for years, then what are the problems he is talking about?
It's quite obvious that the real answer to web developers is "We don't care about you!" Not even enough to answer the question without contradicting themselves.
OFFICIAL: You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...
CROWD: Ooooh!
OFFICIAL:...you are to be stoned to death.
CROWD: Ahh!
LORD_SLEPNIR: Look. I-- I was just making a comment on Slashdot, and all I said was, 'In the name of the great Jehovah.'
CROWD: Oooooh!
OFFICIAL: Blasphemy!
He's said it again!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, he did! He did!...
OFFICIAL: Did you hear him?!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, we did! We did!...
WOMAN #1: Really!
[silence]
OFFICIAL: Are there any women here today?
CROWD: No. No. No. No...
I agree that keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous psychotic individuals is desireable, but I have no idea how that could be implemented fairly and without the potential for abuse.
It's implemented by all of us (speaking of 'Amerikuns' here) having the right to blow the dangerous psychotic individual away (if they attempt to use their firearm in a harmful/non-legal manner).
It's like after 9/11 when we were deciding whether pilots should be armed or not. Heck, put a revolver in the front pocket with the barf bag! How many terrorists would be able to commandeer a plane after that?
Slashdot Mirror
What's scarier are his comments about how she'll be be turning 17 while in NY and will be the age of legal consent; and how she's already legal "across the pond". Sounds like a friggin' pediofile to me.
And I thought it was just odd that this came from the USPTO. I'm surprised no one else commented on the out-of-context subject matter. Does this have anything to do with patents? Doesn't seem like it. Did our tax dollars just get used for this? Most likely. Would I like to see anyone that approved the time to create this report be extradited? Oh yea!
A friend of mine from China told me about how video games are viewed negatively there. He told me this about 10 years ago, actually. He recalled a public service announcement where children and parents are warned about people that inject highly addictive drugs into people while they're at the arcade to get them "hooked". Apparently the arcade games over there are so intense, you wouldn't notice someone sticking a needle in you. And to think, they haven't made Go illegal.
Smart. I've been going through hell with Ubuntu. I'm sure all distros suck for one reason or another, but I've never had Fedora hose my system like Ubuntu has (twice).
I know what you mean. I installed Ubuntu a year ago after not having used Linux in almost 10 years. I was pretty impressed, but twice now, I have upgraded (once from Badger to Dapper), and one was a kernel upgrade that appeared with the automatic notification, with disastrous results. Both of those upgrades made my system a mess. This last one, the kernel upgrade, has made it so I can't login because it can't see my home folder. I'm still trying to figure out how to get it back to normal (or at least get my data).
For the past year I have also used Fedora Core 5 at work. I never had problems with it. Yea, I've chased a few dependencies, but at least I still have all my data! I'm really going to miss Synaptic (GUI for apt-get), but if my system gets hosed twice a year because Ubuntu developers don't know how to make a proper upgrade, then I won't miss it that much.
Except we already do this with diesel. And a few places are doing it now with other fuels. Yes, there are more "pieces" to deal with, but it's hardly an issue since we're already doing it to some degree. It could easily start by regions having what is needed based on what type of energy is generated there. Then each type could "fan-out" as product and demand spread.
If the methane distributor is coming to town, and the vegetable oil distributor is also, then what's the big deal. In fact, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the current energy distributors would take this on (meaning the methane and veggie oil distributor would be the same). Seems like Bob and Suzy could easily be taken care of.
Ok, so what if our short-term solution depletes our natural gas supply entirely in 3-5 years (very possible, depending on scale of adoption). Then we crawl back to the Mid-East and have no way of heating many US homes? How is natural gas renewable, btw? That's new to me.
A better alternative to natural gas?
Electricity, as you mentioned. Which can be generated via wind, solar, geothermal, or all of the above. Hydrogen, obtained through electricity (generated by the previously mentioned methods). Pressurized air, biodiesel, grease/veg oil (already being used). Hemp hurds, processed into solid/liquid/gas fuels through pyrolysis. Alcohol (methanol, not ethanol).
With some of these methods the only argument I've heard is, "You couldn't possibly exchange all of our current petroleum consumption with X". Which is true in almost every case. I think the solution is to start adopting as many clean (and sensible) methods as possible to diminish our current "dirty" paradigm, and to become more self-reliant on our energy needs.
If using hydrogen can only handle 10% of the population, great, that's 10% less. What if alcohol can take care of 5% more? Biodiesel 30% more? Right there we're at 45% reduction in petroleum dependency, even if they could only handle 5% each it would still help.
I understand that, but doing so with a fuel source that is already more scarce than what we are currently using. If I can power a vehicle with Dodo birds great, but if there aren't any, then my work would be mostly a waste of time.
Actually, from the data that I've seen, the natural gas supplies are far worse than our petroleum supply. If there's a new resource we should turn to, it should at least be more abundant than what we currently have. That is, unless we're able to use it so efficiently that we don't need as much.
In most alternative-fuel cases the same engine we use today is still used, the same amount of explosion is required, so the efficiency hasn't changed (or is usually less than what gasoline can do).
Why are these people bothering with fossil fuels anyway? Seems like a big waste of time considering how many alternatives are out there that will either work in a limited capacity initially, or are very close to becoming a reality.
...his conclusion is that aliens can't have had time required to find us yet."
Under what time frame? If an alien race has had advanced technology for 100,000,000 Trillion years, then they'd have plenty of time (and would probably have technology more advanced then sending out physical "probes"). It doesn't see likely from what we know, but I don't think we actually know that much.
Why is it that scientists think that only what we can achieve is possible? It's like us looking for aliens using our technology (SETI). Not that it's impossible, but I'd think other intelligent being could come up with other forms of communication than our own; even if it wasn't more "advanced".
As I had mentioned a few times in this discussion, there is a link to a "print" version. However, to answer your question, it seems to me that the messages know what direction to go, just not the details of the final destination. The article is more conceptual than nutz-n-boltz, but I'm sure some info digging on the subject of their "dieselnet" will give you the finer technical details.
You must be just as blink as Zonk. The link to the print version is right next to the "Slashdot it" link!
This is different in that the final destination address might not be known.
... In a DTN, messages can be launched from a source node even though the final destination IP address can't be known due to disruptions of name servers or routers.
From the article
The article is on five small pages, with no option to see a linkable, printable version.
Yea, except for maybe the link at the bottom of the article that says "Print".
Yea, this time there is a fire in the theater!
Thanks for the info
Now what law was broken here?
You're helping terrorists by giving out this information. I call to arrest Kichigai Mentat immediately!
This whole thing (war against terror, "security" for freedom, TSA practices) is political. He's just keeping this in the arena that it started in. As if he had created a solution*, how would you expect him to "give the ability" to correct it.
The best way I can see to do that is to make a big enough stink about it that someone notices.
*oh wait, he did!
From his page
How do we fix this glaring security hole?
the most influential thing we can do is get modded +5 Insightful for insulting them on Slashdot.
How about flooding his Inbox with letters of reason? I came close to direct insults in my letter, but decided that it might be easier tossed out. Instead I added a way for him to redeem himself. If enough people do the same, he just might do it.
Dear Honorable Edward Markey,
I just read about your response to Christopher Soghoian's findings regarding online printable boarding passes being easily faked.
I have to say that I am appalled at what I am reading. Mr. Soghoian has found something that could allow terrorist to continue to harm Americans. This technique may have already been used, or plan to be used, but now we know about it and can do something about it.
Why? Because Mr. Soghoian was kind enough to expose this security flaw. Punishing someone that has put this much effort into giving us the knowledge to save more lives is asinine.
As a Quality Assurance Engineer, I know the importance of finding, and reporting, flaws. This man should be commended, not condemned.
I think it would be wise as a senior member of the Department for Homeland Security to withdraw your previous statements as you have gained "an insightful perspective" on this issue after responses such as mine.
Scaring others into not telling us where our security flaws are will only lead to more opportunities for our enemies. How can you not immediately see this?
Or should I put you on the list of government employees that pretend like they care, but would rather play political games instead?
Sincerely,
Quincunx (real name used in the real letter)
I encourage others to write as well. If we let him know his error, give him an "out", then maybe bullshit like this won't happen again. Here's hoping.
Here's the send-an-email part of Honorable Edward Markey's web page
Is Oracle really that superior to Ingres, Sybase, Microsoft SQL Server, and especially PostgreSQL or MySQL?
Well, it's not a matter of Oracle's db being "superior" to the others that you mentioned. Oracle is one of the largest software development companies in existance. I haven't looked recently, but the top four usually consist of MS, SAP, Oracle, and IBM. Oracle is in direct competition with SAP. When you buy Oracle, you're not just buying a program that stores and retreives tables. They can integrate into every part of your company, no matter how large (HR, manufacturing, AR, AP, inventory, shipping, you name it). Companies spend millions (usually just over 1 mil, under 10 mil) just to implement Oracle into their company processes, and that usually takes a year or more to take place; then you start training your staff. That doesn't include the cost of the system itself. So 160,000 for a license compared to the 5-20 million you'll spend getting Oracle up and running for your ERP solutions isn't as big as it seems to the rest of us.
The work that we delivered in IE7 simply has more positive impact and makes web developers' jobs easier than making an arbitrary (if terribly clever) web page render the way its author intended.
...snip...
The question here isn't whether we want to support those features or if we understand that web developers want them (we do), but simply prioritization. We focused on web developers' real world problems.
So what he's saying is, "We hear the web developers, understand what they are asking for, have the resources to solve their delima, but choose to focus on other areas that MS feels is more important to web developers." The end of the first quote above is what really pissed me off. They don't think it's a priority for the web page to render the way the author intended? Now I know what I've been doing wrong all these years! I should develop my web apps/pages to render differently than I expect! Geesh!
I'm still confused as to these "real world problems" he's talking about. If nearly every web developer out there has been screaming about standards for years, then what are the problems he is talking about?
It's quite obvious that the real answer to web developers is "We don't care about you!" Not even enough to answer the question without contradicting themselves.
Developers! Developers! Delevopers!
OFFICIAL: You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,... ...you are to be stoned to death.
CROWD: Ooooh!
OFFICIAL:
CROWD: Ahh!
LORD_SLEPNIR: Look. I-- I was just making a comment on Slashdot, and all I said was, 'In the name of the great Jehovah.'
CROWD: Oooooh!
OFFICIAL: Blasphemy!
He's said it again!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, he did! He did!...
OFFICIAL: Did you hear him?!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, we did! We did!...
WOMAN #1: Really!
[silence]
OFFICIAL: Are there any women here today?
CROWD: No. No. No. No...
I agree that keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous psychotic individuals is desireable, but I have no idea how that could be implemented fairly and without the potential for abuse.
/non-legal manner).
It's implemented by all of us (speaking of 'Amerikuns' here) having the right to blow the dangerous psychotic individual away (if they attempt to use their firearm in a harmful
It's like after 9/11 when we were deciding whether pilots should be armed or not. Heck, put a revolver in the front pocket with the barf bag! How many terrorists would be able to commandeer a plane after that?