It seems you are right about the password authentication. Somehow I thought SSH would do something more clever where the password is not sent over the network, but this does not seem to be the case. In this case public key would still be safer (two factors), but SSH would not leak your password during a MITM attack.
I doubt this. There are people who verify the fingerprints. And even if you do this only sometimes this is useful. So a large scale MITM attack on ssh would be very obvious. Also if you do a MITM on ssh you would not be able to obtain the password, because it is not transmitted. So to expand the attack they would need to MITM the ssh connections and then use this to install a backdoor. I would say this is far to intrusive to do on a large scale.
Somehow these journals need to be paid for their work. Peer review is not free, publishing is not free. Just putting it all out on the Internet for free is not a viable business model, as is proven by the many pay-to-publish crap journals discussed here many times recently.
While I agree with most other things you said, I think you got this completely wrong. Peer review is done by volunteers and publishing is relatively cheap (and the traditional scientific publishers make a lot of profit). You can easily operate a journal with very minor resources. And this is exactly the reason there are many pay-to-publish journals which are crap. It is just very cheap to set them up. But not all of these journals are crap (PLOS ONE is the most prominent example of a highly-ranked journals of this kind) and those which are crap are not because they are pay-to-publish. And many traditional publishers have crap journals too (remember the fake journals from Elsevier?). There is simply no direct relationship between the publishing model and quality.
The real reason the good journals are still mostly the traditional ones is simply momentum. As a scientist you need to publish in good journals to get attention to your work. The good journals get to select the most interesting research because everybody submits there first. And the readers (other scientists) read these journals exactly because it has the most interesting content. It is a self-sustaining cycle. Because - as you said - scientists have usually free institutional access to most journals, there is also not too much pressure for change. Only the public gets screwed because it does not get direct access to the research output and also because university libraries have to pay for the over-priced journals. But things are slowly changing because funding agencies start to demand open-access.
The violation of Bell's inequalities shows that there are no local hidden variable theories, but there might be non-local hidden variable theories. But in contrast to what you seem to think, non-local hidden variables theories do not necessarily enable faster than light (FTL) communication.
.
I am still angry about Nokia. 10 thousands of jobs lost and the only mobile platform which was nice from a technology point of view destroyed. All for a hopeless attempt to get some market shared for Windows Mobile.
Well, the truth is we have the non-locality anyway. Whatever happens which reduces the measurement to a definite result is non-local. And - ofcourse - there has to be something like this. Stil, I am not too convinced by the pilot wave theory, but it is at least an attempt to deal with the inherent problems of QM by trying to create a proper physical theory, not by philosophical bullshit.
Non-locality means transmission of information with faster-than-light speeds
No. There is some kind of non-locality which does not imply FTL transmisson of information.The effects in QM are exactly of this kind.
Sadly, the CIA has already set a new standard here.
Rather obviously it does not work out in the wash. This discussion was about the massive waste of energy in the US which leads to a per capita consumption which is about twice that of other highly developed countries such as Japan and Germany and order of magnitude compared to developing countries. The externalities of the energy use affect people globally (like the war in Iraq and its dire consquences or global warming). As such, your idea that "It's not to anyone's detriment other than the person spending" is simple wrong.
I am not sure why you think rewriting in a different way is the solution. One could also refactor and fix bugs (which is being done).
For example the implementation of the core X protocol has been described as good by the guy who found these bugs (because
bugs have already been fixed in the past). New code will not automatically be better: E.g. compare his comments about Qt and KDE.
From looking at it superficially, Wayland seems to be a pretty good code quality though. I am just not too much a fan of breaking
compatibility with the on-the-wire protocol of X.
Yes.
Why can't you use ssh -X ?
Yes, most Linux distributions seem to have used -tcp nolisten for quite a while. ssh -X still works fine and is very useful (IMHO).
Original story:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
CCC talk:
http://media.ccc.de/browse/con...
You understanding of economics is poor. You also missed the main point: Externalities usually affect others than those who benefit from cheaper prices.
Many people write memos to tell you they have nothing to say.
