Forget about.slashdot,.dot is where the real fun is!
"Ok, so the address is slashdot.dot - I'll spell it out for you. (attempting to add emphasis) It's http colon slash slash slashdot dot dot. - Dot dot dot... So an ellipsis? How do I type those on a computer? - No, I mean slashdot, as in S-L-A-S-H-D-O-T, then a dot, then dot spelled out. - Oh! Ok, thanks!"
You don't understand. Punycode is how second-level domains are already implemented, even on top of relatively old browsers. This is an extension of Punycode to be usable in the TLD as well.
In other words, your current version of Firefox will be able to visit pages in IDN TLDs when they're implemented, and so if someone does create a.örg TLD today, you can go to www.anysite.örg to your heart's content already.
Note that this doesn't mean you can go to www.anysite.örg in NCSA Mosaic or anything, because these old browsers were around when Punycode wasn't even a standard. You can go to www.anysite.xn--rg-eka and NCSA Mosaic will recognise that, though. The seamless IDN TLD usage is just going to be present in the more modern browsers. I expect that Opera 8+, IE 6+, Firefox 2+ and recent Safari/Konqueror/Epiphany are going to be able to visit www.anysite.örg and 'hide' the xn--etc- access details from you, the user.
Since software makes the assumption that TLDs only contain [a-z0-9-], UTF-8 can't be used in the DNS. Internationalised domain names, even before these new ccTLDs, used that xn-- system, called Punycode. For instance, the site tinyarro.ws, which provides short URLs via a Unicode domain name, already used.ws for that purpose. It turns into xn--hgi.ws when the DNS request is issued.
ccTLDs using Punycode is just an extension of that mechanism for second-level domains.
That's easy. You take the first battery and put the positive terminal up, then you take the second battery and put the positive terminal down. If you do it right, the two positive pins will be on opposite sides.... Which is how lesbians do it too. That's a neat trick to remember where the heads -- er, I mean positive terminals -- go.
That would be a reason to be embarrassed, yes. Perhaps that's the L word that Colin Crawford was reluctant to say. I would be embarrassed too if I had to tell people that my radio was powered by lesbians.
... is that academics can't rely on Google Books to make their bibliographies, because the publication date and authorship information, which are used in all citation styles (MLA, Harvard, etc.) are incorrect on Google Books for an apparently large amount of books. Categories aren't used in citations, they're used by searchers.
Jon Orwant of Google said that 1899 was a placeholder year for unknown publication dates, as provided by some of their metadata providers... which leads me to ask if they sanitise their data or do any research into publication dates themselves!
Run Windows 7 in Bootcamp (like a comment below suggests), so that the results are fairer; hell, run Mac OS Snow Leopard on a PC if it's got less RAM, the bottlenecks will appear sooner. Though the PC would have to emulate more stuff than Bootcamp does to run Mac OS on itself, so that would be less fair, I admit.
Then there's the trouble of hardware compatibility, which you have much less of on a Mac because Apple controls the hardware and Microsoft does not. (Microsoft and its hardware partners doing a great job with their drivers, in comparison...)
Anyhow, the W7 : Snow Leopard article basically concludes by saying neither is better (?!), which was an unexpected result for me; I thought the winner would be Snow Leopard by a landslide because it would run smoother...
The Ubuntu 9.10 : Snow Leopard article starts better, stating that they used the same system as they did when testing Snow Leopard, again, to test Ubuntu 9.10. Since it has 10 pages, though, I didn't read it.
Now all that's left to finish the Triforce of Operating Systems is a W7 : Ubuntu 9.10 article!:)
Haha! This article is rated purple (2 levels above the lowest -- black) already. Wow.
Anyhow. The fact that the TwIP program requires an IP stack to work is the prime indication that it doesn't really do all that much. Since it can work with raw socket access, and switches the addresses around, well, props, but TFA's "header" code comment says this:
updating the ICMP checksum
which is then contradicted by the code comment before the address swap:
Since we only swap bytes in the IP header, we do not need to update the IP header checksum.
using ICMP and IP interchangeably..?
timothy, take this down. Now. It's your only chance to save face with this article.
I would imagine (without reading TFA, of course) that the officer has deleted all sensitive information and keeps only identifying information. You then input your identifying information and the database determines whether your sensitive information is in the hands of people with more nefarious intentions.
Or rather, desperate, because the system pushes you continuously to get work. If you don't get work, they say, the economy collapses, and no one wants that, hm? So, they say, get crackin'!
Smart cards require a reader. Not many people have a smart card reader. This proposal is about making the most people able to vote online as possible.
HTTPS is already well implemented in modern (and common) Web browsers, thus you get pretty much instant online voting ability with it. Even if you have enough time to dispatch smart card readers...
Client-side certificates could work, yes, but as another reply to grandparent points out, the certificate could link it to the citizen, which is something I didn't think of at first.
I have no real idea about mutual authentication and A3 certificates, indeed; I've only worked with server certificate SSL over various protocols, but it doesn't take much to see that online voting still needs a fair bit of working around problems.
Diebold concerns aside, online voting can be so severely tampered with that it's not even funny.
Concerns of forced voting come first to mind, i.e. someone coercing you into voting a certain way. But a lot of things can go wrong, specific to computer networking and technology itself: * A Trojan horse can be planted on a system and activated soon after the voting period starts, calling the election servers and registering a vote on the owner's behalf. This would be subject to reverse-engineering the election process as it goes through on a real host with Wireshark, but feasible with good auto-update code on the Trojan horse. * An intermediary host meddling with data. This can be a router, WiFi hotspot with hacked firmware, or even an ISP. Mitigated with the use of HTTPS, but users must not bypass warnings of bad certificates! * (If the election is validated by name) Brute-forcing names and hoping to hit a Canadian citizen's name. * (If the election is validated by GeoIP) Using a Canadian host as a proxy. * Other countries' nationals could rig the election (see the comment below about 4chan rigging the election) if validation is not performed or performed incorrectly.
So, yeah. It might work. But it has to be foolproof as much as possible. Maybe send each citizen a card with an online access code? But the non-technological means of tampering with a person's vote will still apply, i.e. coercing them by one way or another, or even the lure of financial gain: "here, pay you 20 bucks to vote for Mr. X"... which is a way for the system to become corrupted.
Even something as simple as recording from the output of the computer doesn't work. I've tried PulseAudio, ALSA and OSS, all with a very simple conclusion: dead silence. It hasn't worked in Ubuntu in the last 3 years; I can't speak for the previous versions.
Is this ever going to work? And if it's currently working, what am I doing wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Forget about .slashdot, .dot is where the real fun is!
"Ok, so the address is slashdot.dot - I'll spell it out for you. (attempting to add emphasis) It's http colon slash slash slashdot dot dot.
- Dot dot dot... So an ellipsis? How do I type those on a computer?
- No, I mean slashdot, as in S-L-A-S-H-D-O-T, then a dot, then dot spelled out.
- Oh! Ok, thanks!"
You don't understand. Punycode is how second-level domains are already implemented, even on top of relatively old browsers. This is an extension of Punycode to be usable in the TLD as well.
In other words, your current version of Firefox will be able to visit pages in IDN TLDs when they're implemented, and so if someone does create a .örg TLD today, you can go to www.anysite.örg to your heart's content already.
Note that this doesn't mean you can go to www.anysite.örg in NCSA Mosaic or anything, because these old browsers were around when Punycode wasn't even a standard. You can go to www.anysite.xn--rg-eka and NCSA Mosaic will recognise that, though. The seamless IDN TLD usage is just going to be present in the more modern browsers. I expect that Opera 8+, IE 6+, Firefox 2+ and recent Safari/Konqueror/Epiphany are going to be able to visit www.anysite.örg and 'hide' the xn--etc- access details from you, the user.
Happy surfing!
Yeah, Slashdot apparently needs to be internationalised too. That ".ws" should be "[U+27A1].ws" (BLACK RIGHTWARDS ARROW).
Since software makes the assumption that TLDs only contain [a-z0-9-], UTF-8 can't be used in the DNS. Internationalised domain names, even before these new ccTLDs, used that xn-- system, called Punycode. For instance, the site tinyarro.ws, which provides short URLs via a Unicode domain name, already used .ws for that purpose. It turns into xn--hgi.ws when the DNS request is issued.
ccTLDs using Punycode is just an extension of that mechanism for second-level domains.
... of course, is Punycode.
A comment before yours has www.íçáñn.örg, which, when entered into Firefox, turns into
www.xn--n-tfarxw.xn--rg-eka
. Looks like the software will still live :)
Err, goggles. I posted the parent comment without even reading the summary. (Ha!)
That's not so bad then. And don't we already have virtual-reality glasses and goggles and other things already? How would this be revolutionary?
Who knows what ads they want to burn into our retinas.
I just hope it won't be an unignorable HeadOn ad, because that is liable to give me unignorable... headaches.
Now if only I had unignorable audio too, so I could know where I apply the HeadOn...
If you have the legal right to a broadband connection, do you have the legal right to get a computer to use that connection?
That's easy. You take the first battery and put the positive terminal up, then you take the second battery and put the positive terminal down. If you do it right, the two positive pins will be on opposite sides. ... Which is how lesbians do it too. That's a neat trick to remember where the heads -- er, I mean positive terminals -- go.
That would be a reason to be embarrassed, yes. Perhaps that's the L word that Colin Crawford was reluctant to say. I would be embarrassed too if I had to tell people that my radio was powered by lesbians.
... is that academics can't rely on Google Books to make their bibliographies, because the publication date and authorship information, which are used in all citation styles (MLA, Harvard, etc.) are incorrect on Google Books for an apparently large amount of books. Categories aren't used in citations, they're used by searchers.
Jon Orwant of Google said that 1899 was a placeholder year for unknown publication dates, as provided by some of their metadata providers... which leads me to ask if they sanitise their data or do any research into publication dates themselves!
This.
Run Windows 7 in Bootcamp (like a comment below suggests), so that the results are fairer; hell, run Mac OS Snow Leopard on a PC if it's got less RAM, the bottlenecks will appear sooner. Though the PC would have to emulate more stuff than Bootcamp does to run Mac OS on itself, so that would be less fair, I admit.
Then there's the trouble of hardware compatibility, which you have much less of on a Mac because Apple controls the hardware and Microsoft does not. (Microsoft and its hardware partners doing a great job with their drivers, in comparison...)
Anyhow, the W7 : Snow Leopard article basically concludes by saying neither is better (?!), which was an unexpected result for me; I thought the winner would be Snow Leopard by a landslide because it would run smoother...
The Ubuntu 9.10 : Snow Leopard article starts better, stating that they used the same system as they did when testing Snow Leopard, again, to test Ubuntu 9.10. Since it has 10 pages, though, I didn't read it.
Now all that's left to finish the Triforce of Operating Systems is a W7 : Ubuntu 9.10 article! :)
I haven't seen a story get pwned into the ground this fast before. ... I must be new here.
Haha! This article is rated purple (2 levels above the lowest -- black) already. Wow.
Anyhow. The fact that the TwIP program requires an IP stack to work is the prime indication that it doesn't really do all that much. Since it can work with raw socket access, and switches the addresses around, well, props, but TFA's "header" code comment says this:
updating the ICMP checksum
which is then contradicted by the code comment before the address swap:
Since we only swap bytes in the IP header, we do not need to update the IP header checksum.
using ICMP and IP interchangeably..?
timothy, take this down. Now. It's your only chance to save face with this article.
The underlying system must provide a way for user programs to receive and send IP packets.
This is where I stopped reading. Just... no. This is just a program that echoes every single thing back to the originator.
46% Firefox and 26% Opera could just as well mean 23 Firefox users and 13 Opera users.
And what's this anyway about using percent? Let's all start using parts per million! :)
IE 6 has always been doing stuff on auto.search.msn.com if you entered URLs whose domain name didn't exist.
This is not news.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Wow, just wow. This reply of yours was made one minute after another referencing goblins from Harry Potter.
I swear, you Harry Potter fans are starting to creep me out. :(
I would imagine (without reading TFA, of course) that the officer has deleted all sensitive information and keeps only identifying information. You then input your identifying information and the database determines whether your sensitive information is in the hands of people with more nefarious intentions.
So, uh... passphrases?
Or rather, desperate, because the system pushes you continuously to get work. If you don't get work, they say, the economy collapses, and no one wants that, hm? So, they say, get crackin'!
Smart cards require a reader. Not many people have a smart card reader. This proposal is about making the most people able to vote online as possible.
HTTPS is already well implemented in modern (and common) Web browsers, thus you get pretty much instant online voting ability with it. Even if you have enough time to dispatch smart card readers...
Client-side certificates could work, yes, but as another reply to grandparent points out, the certificate could link it to the citizen, which is something I didn't think of at first.
I have no real idea about mutual authentication and A3 certificates, indeed; I've only worked with server certificate SSL over various protocols, but it doesn't take much to see that online voting still needs a fair bit of working around problems.
Do not want.
Diebold concerns aside, online voting can be so severely tampered with that it's not even funny.
Concerns of forced voting come first to mind, i.e. someone coercing you into voting a certain way. But a lot of things can go wrong, specific to computer networking and technology itself:
* A Trojan horse can be planted on a system and activated soon after the voting period starts, calling the election servers and registering a vote on the owner's behalf. This would be subject to reverse-engineering the election process as it goes through on a real host with Wireshark, but feasible with good auto-update code on the Trojan horse.
* An intermediary host meddling with data. This can be a router, WiFi hotspot with hacked firmware, or even an ISP. Mitigated with the use of HTTPS, but users must not bypass warnings of bad certificates!
* (If the election is validated by name) Brute-forcing names and hoping to hit a Canadian citizen's name.
* (If the election is validated by GeoIP) Using a Canadian host as a proxy.
* Other countries' nationals could rig the election (see the comment below about 4chan rigging the election) if validation is not performed or performed incorrectly.
So, yeah. It might work. But it has to be foolproof as much as possible. Maybe send each citizen a card with an online access code? But the non-technological means of tampering with a person's vote will still apply, i.e. coercing them by one way or another, or even the lure of financial gain: "here, pay you 20 bucks to vote for Mr. X"... which is a way for the system to become corrupted.
So again: Do not want.
Even something as simple as recording from the output of the computer doesn't work. I've tried PulseAudio, ALSA and OSS, all with a very simple conclusion: dead silence. It hasn't worked in Ubuntu in the last 3 years; I can't speak for the previous versions.
Is this ever going to work? And if it's currently working, what am I doing wrong?
Chinese Govt Spyware Puts Computers at Risk. It was posted this morning.