I think time travel is possible. It's non-specific but what if it's something based on quantum mechanics? You think when Galileo said "Looks like the earth goes around the sun" everyone else in the room laughed and said "oh man another lol moment"?
Congratulations. You made yourself look like the 16th century church.
also "The Solar Roadwayà will, therefore, eliminate half of the greenhouse gases currently being produced. " seems to be a dramatic overstatement.
Overstatement? I doubt there's any truth at all to it. How much carbon do you think it takes to fabricate 25,000 square miles of solar panels? As if we even have the capacity to manufacture that much; entire facilities would have to be built from the ground up. We already have roads; tearing them up and replacing them would certainly be a loss compared to just putting up panels in the desert and leaving roads alone. Then there's all the infrastructure to process and distribute the power from the roads and water cool them.
just put some super tough clear material over the top of the cells and you've dealt with the wear and tear
Another laugh out loud moment. This thread delivers.
I imagine you going to the materials engineer on retainer for your states DoT. "I noticed we're spending $30 million a year resurfacing roads. Send a little of that my way and we can solve that problem. My idea is to put a super tough material over the top and we'll have dealt with the wear and tear."
With only 15% efficiency, 25,000 square miles of solar roadways could produce three times what the US uses annually in energy
25 thousand square miles of solar panels? I laughed out loud at that being considered a plausible solution to the energy crisis. You could power the entire world with the amount of money that would cost, using cheaper power like hydroelectric/wind. Also it would cost a fortune to maintain. Also why do they have to make roads out of them.. where did that come from? Just put them out on land somewhere, you don't have to drive all over them.
You could use that argument anywhere that adults live. Should we have goons patrolling city streets at night asking for ID to prevent theft, rape, and murder? Absolutely not, and in fact the fourth amendment guarantees you the right to refuse to identify yourself, or say anything at all, and the police can do nothing unless they can show reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
The college campus may be private property, which could give them justification to require ID, but this is not a good idea in general like you suggest.
Obviously the idea is that if they make everyone register before they can connect, then cybercriminals can be easily tracked down in real life.
Obviously it's impossible, but the suggestion sort of makes sense coming from someone who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. It might have been possible if this sort of thing had been mandated 40 years ago.
You can sit around and whine about it on principle, the rest of us will sit around and make money then come here to laugh at you whining about it on principal, we'll see who gets further in life.
Compromising principles and eschewing best practices for monetary gains?
I can tell by your spelling that you never graduated high school, so I suppose your failure to recognize this lesson from history is forgivable.
SafeCast overrides operating-system security and safeguards and writes directly to the boot track of the local disk as part of its operation... Adobe also uses a version of SafeCast for its CS products, and has had similar but less frequent problems, particularly with certain types of disk configurations (RAID, multiple-boot), but continues to use the technology for copy protection.
Photoshop should not be in the boot track of my local disk.
On the other hand, by eliminating all of the small-time players, botnets' spam output becomes much more valuable. I haven't gotten a spam email in years, so I'm going to open anything that comes into my inbox.
Also I'm not sold that incurring cost against nodes will significantly damage the botnets as a whole. Users may notice minor slowdown, but they probably won't, especially if the email-solver is tied in as a screensaver or something dependent on when the system is idle. It may push a small number of users over the edge to get their computer fixed but most wouldn't even consider paying probably the full cost of a new computer to address a minor slowdown. Botnet owners would probably shrug and write it off as a tiny bit more damage done by the security community.
And there are other concerns. Tiny changes to power management code in Windows can save Americans millions of dollars per year. How many tons of carbon emissions do you think the world would start churning out if all 1 billion PCs started using an hour of CPU time for every email sent?
What about low power devices like netbooks and handhelds? What about laptops?
Spam doesn't break the system, it shows that the system is already broken. Building a robust system that actually works is better than building a broken system, hoping people don't exploit it, and then prosecuting people who inevitably do.
In computers, things that you aren't allowed to do you shouldn't be able to do. Processes shouldn't read each others' memory, so the operating system doesn't let them. Bob shouldn't read Alice's private files, so he can't. This is common sense design. We don't give the root password to some homeless guy, trusting it will be safe because he knows he'll be hung for high treason if he gives it away. OK it'll probably stay secret, but the whole affair was completely unnecessary as he didn't need the password. I call this a new design principle: Don't Randomly Give Away Your Passwords To Strangers That Are Good At Keeping Secrets.
It's the system's responsibility to maintain order. "Spammers shouldn't send mass mail, so..." should end in "...they can't." just like the other examples, and unlike your version which is "Spammers shouldn't send mass mail, so..." "...we prosecute them".
So good night argent (18001). Go back to your cowering behind your OS's memory protection, which prevents more useful inter-process communication than overflows.
If you leave a communication channel wide open, expect people to message you whether you want it or not. You give implied consent to fill your inbox by setting up a daemon that copies all incoming message data to your mail.
Loudspeaker trucks are in the real world where people can't sleep because there's noise. Spam is in the Wired, where it's completely optional whether you want to listen or not, and it's your responsibility.
These laws are ridiculous anyway. Someone writes a program that saves incoming system messages for later. 40 years later, it becomes illegal to use this program too often. They would have laughed you out of the room if you tried to tell them about CAN-SPAM, and not just because of the name. "What? Don't use it then!" they would have said.
You don't have to run a mail server, and if you do you don't have to accept mail from untrusted hosts. At most, spam should be covered under denial-of-service for putting unreasonable load on receiving mail servers. Fighting email spam is a technical problem, not anything that has ever hurt anyone. Cost to business? Their own problem for inviting it. You don't set a plate of cookies outside with a big sign pointing to them and call that cost to businesses when the next day they're all gone. If businesses opt to set up open mail servers then they can't complain when people use them.
Yes, I understand that it is a problem and it does cost businesses a lot of money, so congress has an interest in legislating it. But I do think my free-cookie analogy is valid, because the system is just that broken. The system is specifically designed to make it as easy as possible to send as many emails as you want to whoever you want. There are endless propositions to make email work, and just about any of them would be a vast improvement. Here are a few short ideas off the top of my head:
Completely toss the idea of accepting mail from anybody. We already use a Web of Trust model for the Web, do something like that for email. Make sure people understand that they're not going to be able to communicate with people not set up as a trusted contact unless they're vetted by a trusted provider. This doesn't have to be hard. Your ISP knows you're a real person, and has strong incentive to restrict your outgoing emails to a few a day if it wants to keep its certificates. Scared of lock-in? This could work just as well with third parties. I can see myself only trusting a high quality trust-provider with a reputation of brutally dropping anything remotely resembling spam.
Allowing a non-trusted person to email you can be as easy as PMing/texting/businesscarding them a little 6 or 7 digit key. High-volume business email like Amazon's customer service or something already deals with lots of spam and could just be configured to use traditional filtering to completely avoid the possibility of losing business.
That's all random-people-connecting-with-businesses by the way. Social communication is much easier. For IM just require friend approval before they can message you. Other stuff like email can be done like a darknet, where you trust just friends you know. Then you can route Trust through your friends, and set how many degrees of separation you want to accept. Just two or three friends out and you've probably encompassed everyone you know, even if you haven't personally contacted them online. Everyone else can either get vetted by a trusted provider or they can just be screwed because nobody should expect to be able to communicate with anyone randomly without being trusted.
We have the attitude completely backwards. Instead of eliminating spam we don't want, we should be behind an interview table squinting and asking "So mr freeman why do you think I should accept mail from you?" or maybe more realistically "So, info page from major free Trust provider, why should I use you and not your competitor?"
Sending emails is level 10? It's the system that's flawed for letting spam be possible; there's nothing evil about sending tons of messages. Engineers, not courts, should be fixing technical problems.
Who even gets spam anyway? Switch to Gmail or stop posting your address all over the web.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure someone with a hundred million dollars riding on a good image would do more regression testing than building 10 images in a day would imply.
"Stock" of course meaning copies of Word already under license, not shares of ownership. >_<
In fact, since the licenses are already sold, Dell can probably keep selling Word through the end of their current contract..
What? That has nothing to do with anything
Anyway, the injunction prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing. There's no reason that would enjoin Dell from selling their stock.
Don't forget he was in the Marines and is interested in religious studies. So you know he can think outside the box.
Plus he has the support of the co-founder, his wife, who is a licensed family therapist!
I think time travel is possible. It's non-specific but what if it's something based on quantum mechanics? You think when Galileo said "Looks like the earth goes around the sun" everyone else in the room laughed and said "oh man another lol moment"?
Congratulations. You made yourself look like the 16th century church.
Driving around on glass solar panels isn't silly?..
We have vast dry lake beds, salt flats, and plain old deserts out in the western US. Let's fill those up before we start replacing roads.
How about paving with $40/ft^2 solar panels?
You apparently have a very loose definition of arable.
Overstatement? I doubt there's any truth at all to it. How much carbon do you think it takes to fabricate 25,000 square miles of solar panels? As if we even have the capacity to manufacture that much; entire facilities would have to be built from the ground up. We already have roads; tearing them up and replacing them would certainly be a loss compared to just putting up panels in the desert and leaving roads alone. Then there's all the infrastructure to process and distribute the power from the roads and water cool them.
Another laugh out loud moment. This thread delivers.
I imagine you going to the materials engineer on retainer for your states DoT. "I noticed we're spending $30 million a year resurfacing roads. Send a little of that my way and we can solve that problem. My idea is to put a super tough material over the top and we'll have dealt with the wear and tear."
25 thousand square miles of solar panels? I laughed out loud at that being considered a plausible solution to the energy crisis. You could power the entire world with the amount of money that would cost, using cheaper power like hydroelectric/wind. Also it would cost a fortune to maintain. Also why do they have to make roads out of them.. where did that come from? Just put them out on land somewhere, you don't have to drive all over them.
Well yeah..
You could use that argument anywhere that adults live. Should we have goons patrolling city streets at night asking for ID to prevent theft, rape, and murder? Absolutely not, and in fact the fourth amendment guarantees you the right to refuse to identify yourself, or say anything at all, and the police can do nothing unless they can show reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
The college campus may be private property, which could give them justification to require ID, but this is not a good idea in general like you suggest.
Obviously the idea is that if they make everyone register before they can connect, then cybercriminals can be easily tracked down in real life.
Obviously it's impossible, but the suggestion sort of makes sense coming from someone who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. It might have been possible if this sort of thing had been mandated 40 years ago.
Compromising principles and eschewing best practices for monetary gains?
I can tell by your spelling that you never graduated high school, so I suppose your failure to recognize this lesson from history is forgivable.
Photoshop should not be in the boot track of my local disk.
That wouldn't be that bad. 23-celsius room temperature is a lot cooler than 100-celsius overheating temperature
Six meters.
On the other hand, by eliminating all of the small-time players, botnets' spam output becomes much more valuable. I haven't gotten a spam email in years, so I'm going to open anything that comes into my inbox.
Also I'm not sold that incurring cost against nodes will significantly damage the botnets as a whole. Users may notice minor slowdown, but they probably won't, especially if the email-solver is tied in as a screensaver or something dependent on when the system is idle. It may push a small number of users over the edge to get their computer fixed but most wouldn't even consider paying probably the full cost of a new computer to address a minor slowdown. Botnet owners would probably shrug and write it off as a tiny bit more damage done by the security community.
And there are other concerns. Tiny changes to power management code in Windows can save Americans millions of dollars per year. How many tons of carbon emissions do you think the world would start churning out if all 1 billion PCs started using an hour of CPU time for every email sent?
What about low power devices like netbooks and handhelds? What about laptops?
Yeah but it's not a cost for them since they're not doing anything with it anyway.
It was sarcastic.
Spam doesn't break the system, it shows that the system is already broken. Building a robust system that actually works is better than building a broken system, hoping people don't exploit it, and then prosecuting people who inevitably do.
In computers, things that you aren't allowed to do you shouldn't be able to do. Processes shouldn't read each others' memory, so the operating system doesn't let them. Bob shouldn't read Alice's private files, so he can't. This is common sense design. We don't give the root password to some homeless guy, trusting it will be safe because he knows he'll be hung for high treason if he gives it away. OK it'll probably stay secret, but the whole affair was completely unnecessary as he didn't need the password. I call this a new design principle: Don't Randomly Give Away Your Passwords To Strangers That Are Good At Keeping Secrets.
It's the system's responsibility to maintain order. "Spammers shouldn't send mass mail, so..." should end in "...they can't." just like the other examples, and unlike your version which is "Spammers shouldn't send mass mail, so..." "...we prosecute them".
So good night argent (18001). Go back to your cowering behind your OS's memory protection, which prevents more useful inter-process communication than overflows.
I've never spammed
You, ironically, just did.
If you leave a communication channel wide open, expect people to message you whether you want it or not. You give implied consent to fill your inbox by setting up a daemon that copies all incoming message data to your mail.
Loudspeaker trucks are in the real world where people can't sleep because there's noise. Spam is in the Wired, where it's completely optional whether you want to listen or not, and it's your responsibility.
These laws are ridiculous anyway. Someone writes a program that saves incoming system messages for later. 40 years later, it becomes illegal to use this program too often. They would have laughed you out of the room if you tried to tell them about CAN-SPAM, and not just because of the name. "What? Don't use it then!" they would have said.
You don't have to run a mail server, and if you do you don't have to accept mail from untrusted hosts. At most, spam should be covered under denial-of-service for putting unreasonable load on receiving mail servers. Fighting email spam is a technical problem, not anything that has ever hurt anyone. Cost to business? Their own problem for inviting it. You don't set a plate of cookies outside with a big sign pointing to them and call that cost to businesses when the next day they're all gone. If businesses opt to set up open mail servers then they can't complain when people use them.
Yes, I understand that it is a problem and it does cost businesses a lot of money, so congress has an interest in legislating it. But I do think my free-cookie analogy is valid, because the system is just that broken. The system is specifically designed to make it as easy as possible to send as many emails as you want to whoever you want. There are endless propositions to make email work, and just about any of them would be a vast improvement. Here are a few short ideas off the top of my head:
Completely toss the idea of accepting mail from anybody. We already use a Web of Trust model for the Web, do something like that for email. Make sure people understand that they're not going to be able to communicate with people not set up as a trusted contact unless they're vetted by a trusted provider. This doesn't have to be hard. Your ISP knows you're a real person, and has strong incentive to restrict your outgoing emails to a few a day if it wants to keep its certificates. Scared of lock-in? This could work just as well with third parties. I can see myself only trusting a high quality trust-provider with a reputation of brutally dropping anything remotely resembling spam.
Allowing a non-trusted person to email you can be as easy as PMing/texting/businesscarding them a little 6 or 7 digit key. High-volume business email like Amazon's customer service or something already deals with lots of spam and could just be configured to use traditional filtering to completely avoid the possibility of losing business.
That's all random-people-connecting-with-businesses by the way. Social communication is much easier. For IM just require friend approval before they can message you. Other stuff like email can be done like a darknet, where you trust just friends you know. Then you can route Trust through your friends, and set how many degrees of separation you want to accept. Just two or three friends out and you've probably encompassed everyone you know, even if you haven't personally contacted them online. Everyone else can either get vetted by a trusted provider or they can just be screwed because nobody should expect to be able to communicate with anyone randomly without being trusted.
We have the attitude completely backwards. Instead of eliminating spam we don't want, we should be behind an interview table squinting and asking "So mr freeman why do you think I should accept mail from you?" or maybe more realistically "So, info page from major free Trust provider, why should I use you and not your competitor?"
Sending emails is level 10? It's the system that's flawed for letting spam be possible; there's nothing evil about sending tons of messages. Engineers, not courts, should be fixing technical problems.
Who even gets spam anyway? Switch to Gmail or stop posting your address all over the web.