I would assume that it's based on the common-law definition of "warrant" which is probably very specific. However, I'm too lazy to actually do research on this....
Instead of a sliding sales tax based on income, you could have a sliding sales tax based on what you're buying. Food from the grocery store (necessity) would be taxed at a lower rate than food from a restaurant (luxury). A luxury car would have a higher tax rate than things like shampoo or toilet paper.
Before people jump on me, I'm not advocating such a system, I'm merely suggesting that it's more feasible than parent-poster thinks.
It sounds to me like uou have a very narrow view of what constitutes "realistic scenarios".
A high-availability mail system that has multiple servers handling client mail storage. VMs are used for rapid failover in the case of hardware failure. Sounds pretty realistic to me. Deduplication is extremely helpful when there are many copies of the same attachment as many users forward it around.
A large set of VMs which used for testing the software you develop with a variety of possible end-user configurations. Sounds pretty realistic to me. Deduplication is extremely helpful to save space storing the base OS libraries and such.
You have a server (or set of servers) which is/are responsible for backing up a large number of other computers. Sounds pretty realistic to me. Deduplication is extremely helpful when these computers have files that are identical. (Hell, deduplication can make it much easier to do incremental backups of a single computer).
You could easily write a script to do that using find, sha1sum or md5sum, sort and link. It would probably only take about 5-10 minutes to write but you most likely don't want to do that. When you modify one item in a hard linked pair, the other one is edited as well, whereas a copy doesn't do this. Unless you are sure your data is immutable, this will lead to problems down the road.
Deduplication systems pay attention to this and maintain independent indexes to do copy-on-write and the like to preserve the independence of each reference.
You do realize that the first satellite-based navigation system (Transit) was operational in 1960? Satellite-based navigation IS a "50 year old, time-tested technology". The first set of GPS satellites were launched in 1978, so GPS itself is "only" 32 years old.
As for the "giant hunks of metal falling through the sky", your comment is just absurd. The principles governing satellites orbiting the earth were understood by Keppler and Newton centuries ago.
This is true, however, for technical issues like this, do you really want your congresspeople making the decision by themseleves? The way this works, the system is designed by experts, reviewed by years by engineers, logistical experts, pilots, etc., etc., until the FAA decides it's ready. They then make a recommendation to congress which is then approved or not.
I'd much rather it this way than have my congressman making technical decisions on his own.
That's a lot faster than I thought it would be, but you're missing the '\n' that's pretty much a required part of hello world. Sadly, including that would make the program even slower....
You can use open source software (GEDA, pcb, etc.) to create custom PCBs that you can get printed pretty cheaply on-demand through a variety of online sites. 2 layer boards are pretty cheap, though 4 layer boards can start getting pricey (though still not horrid). You can then populate the board with SMT components in a toaster oven. Tools for the population: spare toaster oven (don't mix with food), soldering iron with a fine point, syringe with flux and tweezers. A magnifying glass or pair of reading glasses would also be helpful.
approach to preventing spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it (X) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential
employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical (X) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored (X) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud (X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free (X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. (X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Sorry Anthony, but your scheme where a company pays you to not spam them advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based (X) vigilante
approach to preventing spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may
have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal
law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
(X) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential
employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
(X) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
(X) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Sure, I just wanted to point out it's pretty feasible. A couple things to keep in mind.
Cellphone imagery - if you ever take your keys out during the day, someone can walk by with their cellphone and boom - picture from 1 foot away.
This was only a prototype system done in academia as a proof of concept. I'm betting that if someone with serious reason to want it tried, they could dramatically improve the performance
I already posted this in the thread, but it's very relevant to your post. This paper describes a system for decoding keys based on images. In their testing, they were able to do it at 200 feet with a telephoto setup costing under $2000.
As a separate point, lock picking depends on the quality of the locks. While it may take 15 minutes to open a high security lock, most people tend to buy much cheaper locks (like Kwickset) which are much easier. It takes me less than 10 seconds to open the lock on my friend's apartment, and most of that time is spent inserting the tools.
It's really quite a fun read. They have software that takes the picture, transforms the image, and decodes the key, turning it into a 5 digit number which you stick into a COTS keycutting machine to make your key. With their telephoto experiments, they tried to read keys at 100 feet. Out of 10 keys, they got 7 on the first try, 9 by the second try and all 10 by the third try. They then tested it from a roof, taking pictures of a keyring sitting on a table of a cafe across the street, 195 feet away, and decoded the key. The important thing is that once the software is written, anyone can use it. You can decode someone's key, and then go to a locksmith with the 5 digit code.
Really? I took a look through the manual on the page you linked and it says that if you change the APN settings the configuration payload has to be signed by the carrier.
All countries use statements like this when it comes to secret military and intelligence operations. If you say anything other than "no comment" to some operations, then when you say "no comment" to the ones you did do, everyone will know it was you.
Yes it was Harvard Business School (and Stanford and somewhere else that I don't remember) and they denied admissions to the students who did it. A year or two later, Cornell had the same issue with their undergrad early admits (you could log in and then change the url from something like/profile.cfm to/decision.cfm). They posted a statement saying "A group of students at (some discussion forum) figured out blah. These students could not access any information other than their own, no privacy was breached and no action will be taken against the students." I checked out the forum, and one of the students posted an email where he had asked the admissions people if it was accurate and they wrote back and said something on the order of "Yes it was, but you weren't supposed to see it. Congratulations and welcome to Cornell."
Yes, Hitler was elected to power by democratic elections in all the territory he controlled. The citizens of places like Poland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Albania, Serbia, Italy, etc., etc., all just loved that guy.
There are a lot of comments here laying the blame on dumb users, and I agree that they're often at fault, but sometimes the ISPs are to blame. I once had a cable provider (Brightstar, in Seattle) that gave me a combination modem/router that only had an extremely basic admin interface available - the only thing I could change was the WPA password. However, if you SSH'd in to the router from the outside (and only from the outside), you could log in with the default administrator username and password (found through google) and reconfigure almost everything through a horribly undocumented text interface. There's almost no way for a normal user to figure this out or change it, and if they did change the password, the ISP (who almost certainly is using this interface for mass-management) would probably be pretty upset.
I don't know about the stability of chat in general (I often notice outages where it's completely unavailable), but it should fix the laggy-state issue you're concerned about. Your issue is caused by the fact that to create an AJAX client, you basically have to constantly poll the server from the client to get state updates. With XMPP, you can push state-change notifications so they happen almost instantly.
Slashdot Mirror
I would assume that it's based on the common-law definition of "warrant" which is probably very specific. However, I'm too lazy to actually do research on this....
Instead of a sliding sales tax based on income, you could have a sliding sales tax based on what you're buying. Food from the grocery store (necessity) would be taxed at a lower rate than food from a restaurant (luxury). A luxury car would have a higher tax rate than things like shampoo or toilet paper.
Before people jump on me, I'm not advocating such a system, I'm merely suggesting that it's more feasible than parent-poster thinks.
These all sound very realistic to me...
You could easily write a script to do that using find, sha1sum or md5sum, sort and link. It would probably only take about 5-10 minutes to write but you most likely don't want to do that. When you modify one item in a hard linked pair, the other one is edited as well, whereas a copy doesn't do this. Unless you are sure your data is immutable, this will lead to problems down the road.
Deduplication systems pay attention to this and maintain independent indexes to do copy-on-write and the like to preserve the independence of each reference.
You are aware that Cisco's home router line goes by the not-very-well-known brand name "Linksys" right?
You do realize that the first satellite-based navigation system (Transit) was operational in 1960? Satellite-based navigation IS a "50 year old, time-tested technology". The first set of GPS satellites were launched in 1978, so GPS itself is "only" 32 years old.
As for the "giant hunks of metal falling through the sky", your comment is just absurd. The principles governing satellites orbiting the earth were understood by Keppler and Newton centuries ago.
This is true, however, for technical issues like this, do you really want your congresspeople making the decision by themseleves? The way this works, the system is designed by experts, reviewed by years by engineers, logistical experts, pilots, etc., etc., until the FAA decides it's ready. They then make a recommendation to congress which is then approved or not.
I'd much rather it this way than have my congressman making technical decisions on his own.
That's a lot faster than I thought it would be, but you're missing the '\n' that's pretty much a required part of hello world. Sadly, including that would make the program even slower....
You can use open source software (GEDA, pcb, etc.) to create custom PCBs that you can get printed pretty cheaply on-demand through a variety of online sites. 2 layer boards are pretty cheap, though 4 layer boards can start getting pricey (though still not horrid). You can then populate the board with SMT components in a toaster oven. Tools for the population: spare toaster oven (don't mix with food), soldering iron with a fine point, syringe with flux and tweezers. A magnifying glass or pair of reading glasses would also be helpful.
[GAHHHHH SLASHDOT FORMATTING.]
Sorry Anthony, but your scheme where a company pays you to not spam them advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based (X) vigilante
approach to preventing spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may
have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal
law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
(X) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential
employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
(X) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
(X) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Sorry Anthony, but your scheme where a company pays you to not spam them advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based (X) vigilante approach to preventing spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.) ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it (X) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business Specifically, your plan fails to account for (X) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook and the following philosophical objections may also apply: ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical (X) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored (X) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud (X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free (X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough Furthermore, this is what I think about you: ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. (X) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I already posted this in the thread, but it's very relevant to your post. This paper describes a system for decoding keys based on images. In their testing, they were able to do it at 200 feet with a telephoto setup costing under $2000.
As a separate point, lock picking depends on the quality of the locks. While it may take 15 minutes to open a high security lock, most people tend to buy much cheaper locks (like Kwickset) which are much easier. It takes me less than 10 seconds to open the lock on my friend's apartment, and most of that time is spent inserting the tools.
Benjamin Laxton, Kai Wang, and Stefan Savage. Reconsidering Physical Key Secrecy: Teleduplication via Optical Decoding. ACM CCS 2008, Alexandria, VA, October 2008.
It's really quite a fun read. They have software that takes the picture, transforms the image, and decodes the key, turning it into a 5 digit number which you stick into a COTS keycutting machine to make your key. With their telephoto experiments, they tried to read keys at 100 feet. Out of 10 keys, they got 7 on the first try, 9 by the second try and all 10 by the third try. They then tested it from a roof, taking pictures of a keyring sitting on a table of a cafe across the street, 195 feet away, and decoded the key. The important thing is that once the software is written, anyone can use it. You can decode someone's key, and then go to a locksmith with the 5 digit code.
Really? I took a look through the manual on the page you linked and it says that if you change the APN settings the configuration payload has to be signed by the carrier.
All countries use statements like this when it comes to secret military and intelligence operations. If you say anything other than "no comment" to some operations, then when you say "no comment" to the ones you did do, everyone will know it was you.
Yes it was Harvard Business School (and Stanford and somewhere else that I don't remember) and they denied admissions to the students who did it. A year or two later, Cornell had the same issue with their undergrad early admits (you could log in and then change the url from something like /profile.cfm to /decision.cfm). They posted a statement saying "A group of students at (some discussion forum) figured out blah. These students could not access any information other than their own, no privacy was breached and no action will be taken against the students." I checked out the forum, and one of the students posted an email where he had asked the admissions people if it was accurate and they wrote back and said something on the order of "Yes it was, but you weren't supposed to see it. Congratulations and welcome to Cornell."
Much more reasonable than Harvard and the others.
Yes, Hitler was elected to power by democratic elections in all the territory he controlled. The citizens of places like Poland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Albania, Serbia, Italy, etc., etc., all just loved that guy.
However they charge about 4-5x the amount of a normal rental if you're 21-25 and even more if you're 18-20.
There are a lot of comments here laying the blame on dumb users, and I agree that they're often at fault, but sometimes the ISPs are to blame. I once had a cable provider (Brightstar, in Seattle) that gave me a combination modem/router that only had an extremely basic admin interface available - the only thing I could change was the WPA password. However, if you SSH'd in to the router from the outside (and only from the outside), you could log in with the default administrator username and password (found through google) and reconfigure almost everything through a horribly undocumented text interface. There's almost no way for a normal user to figure this out or change it, and if they did change the password, the ISP (who almost certainly is using this interface for mass-management) would probably be pretty upset.
It's work study. That means that the job is a requirement of his federal financial aid package. If he quits, then he can't pay for school.
Or (as others have pointed out) 3.) You have a limited supply of consumables.
If you look at the video in the article he posted, it shows the windows opening and you can see astronauts inside the station looking out.
Well, since Microsoft moved to a city outside of Seattle (Redmond) after Seattle wouldn't offer them enough tax breaks, I'd guess it'd be pretty easy.
I don't know about the stability of chat in general (I often notice outages where it's completely unavailable), but it should fix the laggy-state issue you're concerned about. Your issue is caused by the fact that to create an AJAX client, you basically have to constantly poll the server from the client to get state updates. With XMPP, you can push state-change notifications so they happen almost instantly.