I don't agree. It can easily be made possible to contact a person without giving away the email address. Picture this:
A webpage, you type in the domain, check the box with which contact you want to email. Write in your own email, write in a short message what this is about, and click submit. The owner of the domain now has an option to write you back, without ever having lost his privacy.
If you want to call him, you can receive the number by mail, and that way you can be tracked (and stopped/held to justice if you are a nasty, evil wrongdoer).
If that is the case, how do you account for the fact that some registrars have services to protect WHOIS privacy? If your registrar doesn't have any privacy protection options, perhaps you should transfer?
As for the problem of contacting the owner of a domain in case there really is a need, it should be made to be a manual job. One way to do this could be a contact web page with the registry or registrar (possibly containing a turing test), where someone can send a short request to the owner of the domain (without ever getting the email address), and the owner of the domain can then write back. This web page can then have various rules, like max 1 message to each domain, max 10 messages per hour (or whatever is responsible), which will severely limit spamming.
A lot of registrars offer WHOIS Privacy Protection, but this usually costs almost as much as the domain it self. However, Personal Names (a registrar specializing in.name), does WHOIS Privacy Protection as part of the standard service (ie. no extra charge) and I think this should be the default of all registrars. But I doubt that will happen any time soon.
I thought that if you got a hash collision, you got EEXIST, not a blind overwrite... But it's been a while since I looked at this, so I'm a bit rusty. Who wants to actually check?
You should also consider the consequences if the US does cut emission to the levels of the Kyoto treaty. New technologies would no doubt have been developed to cut the emission levels, and this is something the whole world could benefit from later, including the developing countries. And let's not forget economic benefits for the companies to produce such technologies. But no, there'll be no help from the states... US policy on this matter lacks foresight.
And this has nothing to do with the Columbia, the trash is in a totally different part of the atmosphere.
Is that so? I'm no expert, but the article says:
A collision with a small piece of space junk remains high on NASA's list of possible explanations for the puncture that apparently led to the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia as it re-entered the atmosphere.
How do you propose to detect a chip of paint in space? After that you'd have to first calculate trajectories, and then fire accurately and powerfully enough to actually disintegrate whatever you are shooting and be darn sure you're not just breaking it into smaller pieces. I think the costs would be prohibitive if this is at all possible.
And that is of course one of the things they need to research when implementing a space elevator. Apparently one of the possible ways to go is that if the "rope" is severed by high speed particles, it must burn up on the way down. If not, you'll have a tsunami every time that might happen, which is probably not acceptable...
Imagine the snap of an elastic rope of those dimensions that suddenly doesn't have anything to hold on to it any more. THAT would hurt;)
A collision with a small piece of space junk remains high on NASA's list of possible explanations for the puncture that apparently led to the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia as it re-entered the atmosphere.
How do you suggest this space debris is cleaned up? It is zipping back and forth at VERY high speeds. Perhaps a spacecraft could catch one piece, or maybe even 2. How many more pieces would that spacecraft generate on it's way? I think this is highly problematic, and not likely to happen any time soon.
If not, I'm sure someone who knows better will point out why I'm wrong.
This sounds like an interesting direction to take solar energy. It seems to me that the main focus is often on making solar panels more efficient, but that is probably mainly useful on medium and high technology devices, like cars, planes, calculators, etc.
Another direction to go is to make production really cheap and simple. If you manage this, you can allow people in third world countries to create and use them themselves.,Instead of burning firewood, for instance.
Yet another direction would be this one, where you make solar panels interesting for use in/on buildings and the like. I'm sure there are more.
Carl Sagan wrote in one of his books that if you cover just a fraction of the Sahara Desert with solar panels, the enery needs of the entire world would be covered. There are obviously practical problems here, but it points out clearly how much unharnessed energy is available.
The DNS software isn't the problem here. What you're recommending is basically a flat DNS namespace, where 90% or more of the present-day DNS traffic is moved directly to the root servers. You're going to need to beef up those root servers several orders of magnitude in order for this scheme to work.
What makes you think so? Did you miss the recent research saying that 98% of DNS Queries at the Root Level are Unnecessary?
But there are better solutions than root servers anyway, for instance the one outlined by DJ Bernstein here.
You are missing an important scenario. Say you go on vacation for 2 weeks, and you like filming, and you don't have a computer with you. You're working under the assumption that you will be able to DL the new video every time you charge the battery. That's just wrong.
The heat is generated from current running through transistors, and the current is proportional to the width/length ratio of the transistor. With smaller transistors, both width and length decrease, so the current stays the same. Of course, the current is also a function of the voltage across the transistor, and this has decreased some over the last few years, but it's at just over 2v on my celeron 300, and they can't go very much lower without getting into strange technologies like FGUVMOS-transistors and stuff like that (and they won't, at least not for a long time!).
Anyway, the answer to your question is that the same number of transistors made smaller and bunched together would be warmer because heat dissipation decreases with decreased surface area, even though the energy produced by these is the same. If you put more and smaller transistors into the same area, you will get more energy and more heat.
While I strongly agree that this would be the best solution, you have to realise that without industrial farming, there simply won't be enough food for everyone. Whether or not humans are a parasite on this planet is another matter, but you need to be realistic as well. Check out this for some more realistic ideas, like urban farming and biofuels.
What I find alarming is the attitude of a lot of people posting here, something to the effect of "Yadda yadda, heard it before. Didn't happen then, won't happen now!". I don't think the Earth will die by 2050, but don't people realize that WWF are trying to raise consciousness here? They are trying to get people to think. Apparently that didn't work with the majority of posting slashdotters (who seem to think the acronym is funny). It's clearly not John Doe's credit that some people take alerts like this seriously and actually do something about it. We live in a generation where kids eat beef, but cry when they see a cow getting slaughtered. People need to be educated about how things work and how to live more efficiently. I'd suggest reading a bit about the projects on journeytoforever.org for a different view.
You clearly didn't actually read the link. This is by the designer of qmail and djbdns, Dan J. Bernstein. Among other things, he offers a $500 reward if anyone can find a bug in his DNS software (I'd like to see the authors of BIND doing that!). And this is not a working piece of software, it's a new concept of how email should work. And IMHO, it's a very good idea! The idea is that an email stays at the senders server, only a notification is sent to the recipient. Then, when the recipient actually wants to read the mail, it is downloaded. You can "unsend" an email, you don't need to download the message if you don't want to, and if you're using something like hotmail, it's the sender that has to watch the disk quota, not the recipient.
For a spammer, this means they have to stay online until you download the message (but then you know who they are), or they have to use a relaying server as they do today. But there are less and less relaying servers around! Also, you won't need to download the message anyway, so the success rate for spam will decrease A LOT, making it much less valuable!
Internet Mail 2000 seems to me to be a nice solution to the spam problem! This way you don't have to download the spam if you get it, and if you do, the spammer (or their ISP) has to be online. This especially solves the problem of spammers that send out mail directly to your ISP/mailserver without using a relaying SMTP-server.
The cool thing is that Internet Mail 2000 can coexist with normal mail as we know it today. Smarter servers can check if the recipient supports IM2000, and if they don't, send normal SMTP.
I don't actually think it has been implemented yet, and it looks like there are a few issues left to solve, but nothing unsolvable.
The advent of quantum technology allows us to encrypt stuff in newer and cooler and more secure ways. For instance, you can encrypt something that allows a reciever to read the message once and try to decrypt it, and if that didn't work, too bad! I don't remember the details well enough to get into a technical explanation here, but Simon Singh's "The Code Book" explains some of it at the end (that's where I read it). It has something to do with photons and spins:)
And I do realize that if "old fashioned" crypto is cracked, old messages can be read, but if you've sent something that was *that* secret, it *must* have been illegal;)
You forget that broadband is on all the time, but you can connect whenever you want with a modem. It's cheaper if you're not connected always.
ISDN is around, you know, then you have 2 lines, you connect whenever you want, and unless you're a geek, that's fine, and cheaper than broadband. Not that I want ISDN....
As a techie and a frequent kernel leecher, I want broadband, and I'm prepared to pay for it. But a lot of people out there hardly use their computers when they are at home, and then they might just find that it's just not worth it. Modem is ok for reading mail if you don't get a lot. Just like the latest P9 blabla 6THz, people don't really need this, they just think they do because of M$ bloat (both in mails and in CPU drainage);(
BUT, this is only because all the expected services for broadband haven't arrived yet. If TV-on-demand or whatever and other cool services started showing up, then maybe more people would be prepared to use this stuff.
I'm not a gamer, and my PII 450 is good enough today, so why shouldn't it be tomorrow as well? Maybe ISDN is good enough for most people today.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree. It can easily be made possible to contact a person without giving away the email address. Picture this:
.name
A webpage, you type in the domain, check the box with which contact you want to email. Write in your own email, write in a short message what this is about, and click submit. The owner of the domain now has an option to write you back, without ever having lost his privacy.
If you want to call him, you can receive the number by mail, and that way you can be tracked (and stopped/held to justice if you are a nasty, evil wrongdoer).
Ketil
Shameless plug:
Personal Names - get your
If that is the case, how do you account for the fact that some registrars have services to protect WHOIS privacy? If your registrar doesn't have any privacy protection options, perhaps you should transfer?
.name
As for the problem of contacting the owner of a domain in case there really is a need, it should be made to be a manual job. One way to do this could be a contact web page with the registry or registrar (possibly containing a turing test), where someone can send a short request to the owner of the domain (without ever getting the email address), and the owner of the domain can then write back. This web page can then have various rules, like max 1 message to each domain, max 10 messages per hour (or whatever is responsible), which will severely limit spamming.
Ketil
Personal Names - get your
A lot of registrars offer WHOIS Privacy Protection, but this usually costs almost as much as the domain it self. However, Personal Names (a registrar specializing in .name), does WHOIS Privacy Protection as part of the standard service (ie. no extra charge) and I think this should be the default of all registrars. But I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Disclaimer: I work for Personal Names.
I thought that if you got a hash collision, you got EEXIST, not a blind overwrite... But it's been a while since I looked at this, so I'm a bit rusty. Who wants to actually check?
You should also consider the consequences if the US does cut emission to the levels of the Kyoto treaty. New technologies would no doubt have been developed to cut the emission levels, and this is something the whole world could benefit from later, including the developing countries. And let's not forget economic benefits for the companies to produce such technologies. But no, there'll be no help from the states... US policy on this matter lacks foresight.
Yes, Perhaps you need one of those?
...sounds like a college for fat people.
I'll put some email addresses on my webpage and forward those to you. We'll share the "revenue" of the spam 50-50! :)
And this has nothing to do with the Columbia, the trash is in a totally different part of the atmosphere.
Is that so? I'm no expert, but the article says:
A collision with a small piece of space junk remains high on NASA's list of possible explanations for the puncture that apparently led to the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia as it re-entered the atmosphere.
"All you need..."? Famous last words ;)
How do you propose to detect a chip of paint in space? After that you'd have to first calculate trajectories, and then fire accurately and powerfully enough to actually disintegrate whatever you are shooting and be darn sure you're not just breaking it into smaller pieces. I think the costs would be prohibitive if this is at all possible.
And that is of course one of the things they need to research when implementing a space elevator. Apparently one of the possible ways to go is that if the "rope" is severed by high speed particles, it must burn up on the way down. If not, you'll have a tsunami every time that might happen, which is probably not acceptable...
;)
Imagine the snap of an elastic rope of those dimensions that suddenly doesn't have anything to hold on to it any more. THAT would hurt
From the article linked:
A collision with a small piece of space junk remains high on NASA's list of possible explanations for the puncture that apparently led to the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia as it re-entered the atmosphere.
How do you suggest this space debris is cleaned up? It is zipping back and forth at VERY high speeds. Perhaps a spacecraft could catch one piece, or maybe even 2. How many more pieces would that spacecraft generate on it's way? I think this is highly problematic, and not likely to happen any time soon.
If not, I'm sure someone who knows better will point out why I'm wrong.
Bah, who needs a new bluetooth when Ultra Wideband can do it better anyway?
Or is that what they are going to call it?
This sounds like an interesting direction to take solar energy. It seems to me that the main focus is often on making solar panels more efficient, but that is probably mainly useful on medium and high technology devices, like cars, planes, calculators, etc.
Another direction to go is to make production really cheap and simple. If you manage this, you can allow people in third world countries to create and use them themselves.,Instead of burning firewood, for instance.
Yet another direction would be this one, where you make solar panels interesting for use in/on buildings and the like. I'm sure there are more.
Carl Sagan wrote in one of his books that if you cover just a fraction of the Sahara Desert with solar panels, the enery needs of the entire world would be covered. There are obviously practical problems here, but it points out clearly how much unharnessed energy is available.
What makes you think so? Did you miss the recent research saying that
98% of DNS Queries at the Root Level are Unnecessary?
But there are better solutions than root servers anyway, for instance the one outlined by DJ Bernstein here.
You are missing an important scenario. Say you go on vacation for 2 weeks, and you like filming, and you don't have a computer with you. You're working under the assumption that you will be able to DL the new video every time you charge the battery. That's just wrong.
The heat is generated from current running through transistors, and the current is proportional to the width/length ratio of the transistor. With smaller transistors, both width and length decrease, so the current stays the same. Of course, the current is also a function of the voltage across the transistor, and this has decreased some over the last few years, but it's at just over 2v on my celeron 300, and they can't go very much lower without getting into strange technologies like FGUVMOS-transistors and stuff like that (and they won't, at least not for a long time!).
Anyway, the answer to your question is that the same number of transistors made smaller and bunched together would be warmer because heat dissipation decreases with decreased surface area, even though the energy produced by these is the same. If you put more and smaller transistors into the same area, you will get more energy and more heat.
While I strongly agree that this would be the best solution, you have to realise that without industrial farming, there simply won't be enough food for everyone. Whether or not humans are a parasite on this planet is another matter, but you need to be realistic as well. Check out this for some more realistic ideas, like urban farming and biofuels.
What I find alarming is the attitude of a lot of people posting here, something to the effect of "Yadda yadda, heard it before. Didn't happen then, won't happen now!". I don't think the Earth will die by 2050, but don't people realize that WWF are trying to raise consciousness here? They are trying to get people to think. Apparently that didn't work with the majority of posting slashdotters (who seem to think the acronym is funny). It's clearly not John Doe's credit that some people take alerts like this seriously and actually do something about it. We live in a generation where kids eat beef, but cry when they see a cow getting slaughtered. People need to be educated about how things work and how to live more efficiently. I'd suggest reading a bit about the projects on journeytoforever.org for a different view.
You clearly didn't actually read the link. This is by the designer of qmail and djbdns, Dan J. Bernstein. Among other things, he offers a $500 reward if anyone can find a bug in his DNS software (I'd like to see the authors of BIND doing that!). And this is not a working piece of software, it's a new concept of how email should work. And IMHO, it's a very good idea! The idea is that an email stays at the senders server, only a notification is sent to the recipient. Then, when the recipient actually wants to read the mail, it is downloaded. You can "unsend" an email, you don't need to download the message if you don't want to, and if you're using something like hotmail, it's the sender that has to watch the disk quota, not the recipient.
For a spammer, this means they have to stay online until you download the message (but then you know who they are), or they have to use a relaying server as they do today. But there are less and less relaying servers around! Also, you won't need to download the message anyway, so the success rate for spam will decrease A LOT, making it much less valuable!
Internet Mail 2000 seems to me to be a nice solution to the spam problem! This way you don't have to download the spam if you get it, and if you do, the spammer (or their ISP) has to be online. This especially solves the problem of spammers that send out mail directly to your ISP/mailserver without using a relaying SMTP-server.
The cool thing is that Internet Mail 2000 can coexist with normal mail as we know it today. Smarter servers can check if the recipient supports IM2000, and if they don't, send normal SMTP.
I don't actually think it has been implemented yet, and it looks like there are a few issues left to solve, but nothing unsolvable.
The advent of quantum technology allows us to encrypt stuff in newer and cooler and more secure ways. For instance, you can encrypt something that allows a reciever to read the message once and try to decrypt it, and if that didn't work, too bad! I don't remember the details well enough to get into a technical explanation here, but Simon Singh's "The Code Book" explains some of it at the end (that's where I read it). It has something to do with photons and spins :)
;)
And I do realize that if "old fashioned" crypto is cracked, old messages can be read, but if you've sent something that was *that* secret, it *must* have been illegal
You forget that broadband is on all the time, but you can connect whenever you want with a modem. It's cheaper if you're not connected always.
ISDN is around, you know, then you have 2 lines, you connect whenever you want, and unless you're a geek, that's fine, and cheaper than broadband. Not that I want ISDN....
As a techie and a frequent kernel leecher, I want broadband, and I'm prepared to pay for it. But a lot of people out there hardly use their computers when they are at home, and then they might just find that it's just not worth it. Modem is ok for reading mail if you don't get a lot. Just like the latest P9 blabla 6THz, people don't really need this, they just think they do because of M$ bloat (both in mails and in CPU drainage) ;(
BUT, this is only because all the expected services for broadband haven't arrived yet. If TV-on-demand or whatever and other cool services started showing up, then maybe more people would be prepared to use this stuff.
I'm not a gamer, and my PII 450 is good enough today, so why shouldn't it be tomorrow as well? Maybe ISDN is good enough for most people today.