Well if I did it, the boosts will be on a per customer IP basis. Not per connection. You would then have to be able to successfully _request_ for a new different and valid source IP address every few seconds, and then do the downloading. Good luck with that.
You're addressing a totally different problem from what I'm talking about.
Did you read the "Starbucks" bit? and the "current wireless solutions in practice" bit?
How would Starbucks provide a safer WiFi service for its customers? They most certainly can't tell patrons to install openswan etc.
The last I checked, Google/Yahoo don't support "Opportunistic Encryption", even Slashdot doesn't.
Anyone solely using Opportunistic Encryption obviously lives in a very isolated corner of the Internet compared to everyone else, if anyone tries to attack their computer/data it'll probably be by accident. There's no significant money to make by targeting such niches.
One more thing: most of the time people just send the patch diffs and refers to stuff by the diffs (or even just the patch name) alone. So many people have no idea what the full "code" looks like.
You expect the Bank to just keep your "gold/whatever" and not lend it out? You'll have to pay them to hold your gold for you then.
How are people going to afford cars and houses if they can't borrow and bet on the future (or bet on the banks being suckers;) )?
It'll end up like "Dad(s) could you buy this house/car for me and my wife?".
Debt is a tool. There are lots of countries using systems based on debt, and not all of them screw it up that badly.
The US has a unique position of being able to mess about without paying as much for the consequences than other countries, because "everyone" uses the USD to trade. So the US prints more money and the USD goes down in value but the goods from China are priced in USD, and so is Oil.
While China buys a lot of stuff that's also priced in USD (whoopee;) ) the trouble (for the US) is the Arabs appear to like a fair amount of European stuff, so the oil prices will go up vs the USD more.
Yeah what people don't seem to understand is that even gold backed stuff will be backed by debt- since banks will have to lend the "gold" out to make money or at least pay you interest. Unless you want to go back to paying the banks to keep your gold safe and for easy transactions;).
Regarding the inflation tax: currently the US still has a big advantage since a lot of stuff is bought and sold using US dollars, so many countries around the world have to keep large reserves of US dollars, even if they are just buying and selling to each other and not the USA. My guess is there's more US dollars "out" in the world than in the USA.
So when the USA prints money, it actually taxes all these countries too, not just the US people.
Say China (or Japan) sells stuff to USA, it gets US dollars in payment, China uses some of those US dollars to buy US bonds. The USA uses that money then to buy more stuff from China;).
It might seem bizarre and it would probably "blow up" eventually. But so far the system has been working for quite long.
Problem is lots of countries would indeed want to avoid the US inflation tax, and some are switching to the Euro, and this is not good for the US.
If you want to know why the US puts up with Saudi Arabia, it's because they are sticking to selling oil in USD.
Lastly I'm not sure that printing billions or more and sending it into "Iraq" (Halliburton) is helpful. I think that makes it more likely to blow up sooner, since it makes the USD drop in value faster.
Just compare the oil prices vs the Euro and the oil prices vs the USD, and you might see the scale of money printing, sure the oil prices are going up, but that's not the full story.
To help protect you from other people in the area, and also help protect companies providing the access.
What ATT does further upstream is between them and you.
What happens at the sites, affects the people running those sites too.
If someone sets up an AP and pretends to be Starbucks, it can create a fair amount of problems, even if it's not Starbucks fault. If it's too much hassle maybe Starbucks might just stop providing WiFi access.
Someone could still jam the network, but such attacks are more detectable.
Think peacock's plumage - to show fitness to potential mates and rivals:). So the more expensive the "better", naturally it's got to have some base quality, but it doesn't actually have to be that functional or good.
A cheap phone is probably better than most of those expensive watches for time keeping purposes.
Linux doesn't spread because 1) It doesn't come preinstalled on most systems (and if it does it's often not cheaper, sometimes you even have to pay _more_). No normal person is going to install it themselves. If people had to install OSX themselves it would never have got that much share (OSX has a higher share than Linux on notebooks). 2) Support for apps (especially games and things like Microsoft Office). 3) There's no coordinated marketing plan or strategy to herd the sheeple...
Microsoft has kind of shot themselves in the foot with Office 2007- it's more different from previous versions than Open Office is. Similarly Vista is a downgrade from XP. But because of 3) the opportunity won't really be exploited fully.
The fact they were thinking that way (WEP) shows you how much they cared about security, and how ignorant/stupid they were. Wireless is definitely not the same as wired.
As for wired security, you can configure decent switches so that clients can only see traffic from a "blessed" server (or network/port) but not each other (not even each other's broadcasts).
The problem as I mentioned is even if _public_ WiFi service providers want to provide better security, it's so _hard_ with the current WiFi technology and implementation.
A company can force their employees to jump through hoops, cafes, restaurants etc don't want to do that.
I'm not saying use SSL, I'm saying the WiFi stuff should learn from it. Certificates don't require DNS. Most people's computers already have dozens of CA certificates preinstalled if not more. It's not even a big stretch - one could use something like CN=usa.starbucks.wifi, and have it signed by one of the less evil CAs (don't use verisign!).
I think you also misunderstand how stuff works - the client doesn't have to obtain the server's cert by other means - the client gets the cert directly from the server - that's what happens in SSL. The client then sees who it's signed by, and if it's by a recognized authority, the user doesn't get any warnings, popups etc.
Current wireless solutions in practice don't have something like https usage.
Where "anonymous" users can securely communicate with servers (that can be validated - if the users actually care).
If you have a WiFi network secured using a naive shared key method, anyone with the shared key can decipher the access of the other users. This might be fine in your house, but not good in some public cafe.
Seems the way around this with current WiFi technology is to let every user use an account - username and password. Apparently in this case even if users share the same username and password, using WPA2 or whatever (I can't be bothered to keep accurate tabs on below par crap;) ) they can't decrypt each others sessions. Not sure if this is 100% true given the track record;).
Assuming it's true, it would be much easier if Windows (and other O/Ses) would default to a standard username and password AND also check the cert of the AP (and issue warnings if it looks dodgy). You should be allowed to log in using a particular user account, or be prompted if the AP rejects the default.
Then people like Starbucks/BK/etc could use certs for their WiFi networks, and customer can have reasonably secured comms at least between themselves and the AP.
The WiFi Alliance should have copied the SSL _concepts_ and got the help of decent security people, rather than coming up with crap year after year (for how many years?).
Well try think of ways of killing those blood sucking mosquitoes.
I'm fine with ants or even roaches. But those mosquitoes? As long as they suck blood, I think they should die. They should evolve and suck plant sap like aphids.
When one takes a full blood drink from me, I wonder if the mosquito's content ratio of my cells to mosquito cells is more than 50%.
BTW humans contain more bacteria than human cells:).
How sure are you that humans would win against ants? As in totally wipe out every single ant colony (otherwise they'll just come back:) ).
I don't think it's so easy. The humans can't even wipe out blood sucking mosquitoes (if we are not careful with what we throw at them, we might not survive either).
How can people say that humans are a winner at this point? We've only been around for a very short time.
Stuff like bacteria can survive extended periods in space (I suspect some fungi might too). Anywhere we go, they will go. And they can go places that we might never get to - they could survive a long time in/on an asteroid.
They have been around before, during, and after the dinosaurs.
High intelligence could just be a "peacocks tail" or a negative mutation.
Unless for some strange reason you believe that dying very slowly and painfully gives you some benefit, it's pretty logical to assume that dying a quick painful death < 1 minute is a lot better than taking months (or years) to die (or have your mind rot away till you're mostly gone but your body is still around and causing a fair amount of unpleasantness to people around you).
Now there are many good reasons why you might wish to hang around for longer, in which case dying quick might not be optimal.
BUT I still wonder why so many people make their lives so miserable just to avoid dying from a heart attack. Sure, try to avoid dying from it way too early (you decide how early is early - especially if you have family etc), but think about it, if you don't die from a heart attack, the next two top causes of death are cancer and stroke.
So which is it going to be? Think things through so that you don't overly increase your odds of dying of something you dislike more...
It is true having clogged arteries might reduce your quality of life - can't climb stairs etc.
But the point is practically everyone dies eventually.
OK assuming someone does create an intelligence by simulating a human brain. I still won't call that a breakthrough, unless you _understand_ the _why_ and _how_ , much much better than we do now.
Otherwise, if I wanted a nonhuman intelligence without really understanding stuff, I could always go to the pet store and buy one. Doh...
It's not too far fetched that the biotech people could create an "artificial" creature with human level intelligence (and before the Computer Science people, or "classic" AI people). By the AI field's current standards, wouldn't that still qualify as an AI?
That's why I think the AI field is still a dismal field - a lot of these AI researchers are doing _crap_, and many actually seem to think they're making significant progress when doing it. Sorry if I sound harsh, but hey even I can come up with bullshit that doesn't significantly advance the field.
The main advantage I see with the "simulate" approach over the biotech "grow it" approach is you could probably copy a desired training result more easily. Maybe that's all that counts - you could scale it better.
How about enhancing existing humans and animals with current technology, instead of trying to create a full AI? What problem are you trying to solve? Or are you trying to just create a new problem, or create a solution looking for a problem?
You trade A to someone for B because you value B more than A, and that someone thinks the other way.
Why? Maybe that person needs "A" _now_.
That person might still think it's a crap time to sell the share, but might need the cash to keep the house/car.
The other thing is lots of people are stupid. And sometimes the stock market has a way of making the "smart" look stupid.
There were a lot of people who figured some bubbles should have burst a long time ago, but they just kept going for a few more years (irrational exuberance? What's that?:) )... Those that bet big on the bubbles bursting "real soon now", lost. The rest who just pulled out, didn't make as much.
The problem with too loose a definition is then lots of people end up being considered insiders...
For example, say X does Y classes for the wives of big bosses, and X might be able to tell whether the various companies are doing well or not just from observing the wives;).
Even if the husbands aren't telling the wives that their companies just had record profits, the new cars/vacation/etc they bought for their wives might reveal stuff.
Sure it's not 100%, but apparently it worked well enough for someone I know;).
You don't even need to use the owner's eye to register when secretly turning that feature on. You could use a unique fake "eye" instead. I don't think the camera will care that much.
If the owner doesn't remove the "sig", then maybe one day you'll know who posted that photo scoop...
Retry (it might work the second try) Restart (the program) Reboot (the O/S) Reinstall (the program, and various versions) Reformat Reinstall (the O/S + application) Reinstall (another O/S + application) Retry (who knows...) Resign Resume (rhymes with cafe) Resume (rhymes with consume)
Then there was: plug and pray and plug and pay and plug and pray and plug and play and plug and pray and plug and yay... finally it works:).
Why this vendetta against smokers? Why should they ban smoking in bars? Just tax "smoking allowed" bars/restaurants/etc more.
I'm a nonsmoker and I think smokers should have a choice too, pls some nonsmokers don't mind hanging out with people who smoke.
So many countries are worried about aging populations, but when smokers step up to sacrifice themselves for the good of the country, governments take harsh and excessive measures to stop them.
There's a high chance you are going to die of something expensive to treat, smokers just do it earlier, and they pay for it and more if you tax things right.
Same goes for the obese.
I'm not saying we shouldn't educate people of the dangers, and yes we should certainly discourage children from such stuff.
It would also be best if most people didn't die way too early e.g. < 30, since I believe the payback period is a bit longer given the total costs of bringing a human up. Smoking isn't that dangerous so smokers tend to die not so far from retirement age. Note: if they survive past retirement, they still keep paying taxes - tobacco taxes;).
I told a colleague something similar before, and he promptly tried to quit smoking:).
Slashdot Mirror
Well if I did it, the boosts will be on a per customer IP basis. Not per connection. You would then have to be able to successfully _request_ for a new different and valid source IP address every few seconds, and then do the downloading. Good luck with that.
Comcast might do things differently.
Of course there's an inefficient way to go about it. You could ask me for instance ;).
So who gets those loans? Who decides? The government?
What happens if people can't pay back?
Who owns what's left?
You're addressing a totally different problem from what I'm talking about.
Did you read the "Starbucks" bit? and the "current wireless solutions in practice" bit?
How would Starbucks provide a safer WiFi service for its customers? They most certainly can't tell patrons to install openswan etc.
The last I checked, Google/Yahoo don't support "Opportunistic Encryption", even Slashdot doesn't.
Anyone solely using Opportunistic Encryption obviously lives in a very isolated corner of the Internet compared to everyone else, if anyone tries to attack their computer/data it'll probably be by accident. There's no significant money to make by targeting such niches.
One more thing: most of the time people just send the patch diffs and refers to stuff by the diffs (or even just the patch name) alone. So many people have no idea what the full "code" looks like.
How do you not have a system based on debt?
;) )?
;) ) the trouble (for the US) is the Arabs appear to like a fair amount of European stuff, so the oil prices will go up vs the USD more.
You expect the Bank to just keep your "gold/whatever" and not lend it out? You'll have to pay them to hold your gold for you then.
How are people going to afford cars and houses if they can't borrow and bet on the future (or bet on the banks being suckers
It'll end up like "Dad(s) could you buy this house/car for me and my wife?".
Debt is a tool. There are lots of countries using systems based on debt, and not all of them screw it up that badly.
The US has a unique position of being able to mess about without paying as much for the consequences than other countries, because "everyone" uses the USD to trade. So the US prints more money and the USD goes down in value but the goods from China are priced in USD, and so is Oil.
While China buys a lot of stuff that's also priced in USD (whoopee
Yeah what people don't seem to understand is that even gold backed stuff will be backed by debt- since banks will have to lend the "gold" out to make money or at least pay you interest. Unless you want to go back to paying the banks to keep your gold safe and for easy transactions ;).
;).
Regarding the inflation tax: currently the US still has a big advantage since a lot of stuff is bought and sold using US dollars, so many countries around the world have to keep large reserves of US dollars, even if they are just buying and selling to each other and not the USA. My guess is there's more US dollars "out" in the world than in the USA.
So when the USA prints money, it actually taxes all these countries too, not just the US people.
Say China (or Japan) sells stuff to USA, it gets US dollars in payment, China uses some of those US dollars to buy US bonds. The USA uses that money then to buy more stuff from China
It might seem bizarre and it would probably "blow up" eventually. But so far the system has been working for quite long.
Problem is lots of countries would indeed want to avoid the US inflation tax, and some are switching to the Euro, and this is not good for the US.
If you want to know why the US puts up with Saudi Arabia, it's because they are sticking to selling oil in USD.
Lastly I'm not sure that printing billions or more and sending it into "Iraq" (Halliburton) is helpful. I think that makes it more likely to blow up sooner, since it makes the USD drop in value faster.
Just compare the oil prices vs the Euro and the oil prices vs the USD, and you might see the scale of money printing, sure the oil prices are going up, but that's not the full story.
That's not worse for the cat :).
:).
Patent the evil stuff, and only issue licenses to people already in prison or on deathrow
Chocolate! :)
To help protect you from other people in the area, and also help protect companies providing the access.
What ATT does further upstream is between them and you.
What happens at the sites, affects the people running those sites too.
If someone sets up an AP and pretends to be Starbucks, it can create a fair amount of problems, even if it's not Starbucks fault. If it's too much hassle maybe Starbucks might just stop providing WiFi access.
Someone could still jam the network, but such attacks are more detectable.
Watches are jewelry.
:). So the more expensive the "better", naturally it's got to have some base quality, but it doesn't actually have to be that functional or good.
Think peacock's plumage - to show fitness to potential mates and rivals
A cheap phone is probably better than most of those expensive watches for time keeping purposes.
Linux doesn't spread because
1) It doesn't come preinstalled on most systems (and if it does it's often not cheaper, sometimes you even have to pay _more_). No normal person is going to install it themselves. If people had to install OSX themselves it would never have got that much share (OSX has a higher share than Linux on notebooks).
2) Support for apps (especially games and things like Microsoft Office).
3) There's no coordinated marketing plan or strategy to herd the sheeple...
Microsoft has kind of shot themselves in the foot with Office 2007- it's more different from previous versions than Open Office is. Similarly Vista is a downgrade from XP. But because of 3) the opportunity won't really be exploited fully.
The fact they were thinking that way (WEP) shows you how much they cared about security, and how ignorant/stupid they were. Wireless is definitely not the same as wired.
As for wired security, you can configure decent switches so that clients can only see traffic from a "blessed" server (or network/port) but not each other (not even each other's broadcasts).
The problem as I mentioned is even if _public_ WiFi service providers want to provide better security, it's so _hard_ with the current WiFi technology and implementation.
A company can force their employees to jump through hoops, cafes, restaurants etc don't want to do that.
I'm not saying use SSL, I'm saying the WiFi stuff should learn from it. Certificates don't require DNS. Most people's computers already have dozens of CA certificates preinstalled if not more. It's not even a big stretch - one could use something like CN=usa.starbucks.wifi, and have it signed by one of the less evil CAs (don't use verisign!).
I think you also misunderstand how stuff works - the client doesn't have to obtain the server's cert by other means - the client gets the cert directly from the server - that's what happens in SSL. The client then sees who it's signed by, and if it's by a recognized authority, the user doesn't get any warnings, popups etc.
Current wireless solutions in practice don't have something like https usage.
;) ) they can't decrypt each others sessions. Not sure if this is 100% true given the track record ;).
Where "anonymous" users can securely communicate with servers (that can be validated - if the users actually care).
If you have a WiFi network secured using a naive shared key method, anyone with the shared key can decipher the access of the other users. This might be fine in your house, but not good in some public cafe.
Seems the way around this with current WiFi technology is to let every user use an account - username and password.
Apparently in this case even if users share the same username and password, using WPA2 or whatever (I can't be bothered to keep accurate tabs on below par crap
Assuming it's true, it would be much easier if Windows (and other O/Ses) would default to a standard username and password AND also check the cert of the AP (and issue warnings if it looks dodgy). You should be allowed to log in using a particular user account, or be prompted if the AP rejects the default.
Then people like Starbucks/BK/etc could use certs for their WiFi networks, and customer can have reasonably secured comms at least between themselves and the AP.
The WiFi Alliance should have copied the SSL _concepts_ and got the help of decent security people, rather than coming up with crap year after year (for how many years?).
Well try think of ways of killing those blood sucking mosquitoes.
:).
I'm fine with ants or even roaches. But those mosquitoes? As long as they suck blood, I think they should die. They should evolve and suck plant sap like aphids.
When one takes a full blood drink from me, I wonder if the mosquito's content ratio of my cells to mosquito cells is more than 50%.
BTW humans contain more bacteria than human cells
Warning: firing the Point-of-View ray at a mirror at yourself might cause recursion problems..
How sure are you that humans would win against ants? As in totally wipe out every single ant colony (otherwise they'll just come back :) ).
I don't think it's so easy. The humans can't even wipe out blood sucking mosquitoes (if we are not careful with what we throw at them, we might not survive either).
How can people say that humans are a winner at this point? We've only been around for a very short time.
Stuff like bacteria can survive extended periods in space (I suspect some fungi might too). Anywhere we go, they will go. And they can go places that we might never get to - they could survive a long time in/on an asteroid.
They have been around before, during, and after the dinosaurs.
High intelligence could just be a "peacocks tail" or a negative mutation.
So what will happen is the Stupid will vote, but a few of the Smart will still control everything...
Maybe the species might split eventually, but I don't think the Smart are that smart are they?
I suspect he hasn't thought things through.
Unless for some strange reason you believe that dying very slowly and painfully gives you some benefit, it's pretty logical to assume that dying a quick painful death < 1 minute is a lot better than taking months (or years) to die (or have your mind rot away till you're mostly gone but your body is still around and causing a fair amount of unpleasantness to people around you).
Now there are many good reasons why you might wish to hang around for longer, in which case dying quick might not be optimal.
BUT I still wonder why so many people make their lives so miserable just to avoid dying from a heart attack. Sure, try to avoid dying from it way too early (you decide how early is early - especially if you have family etc), but think about it, if you don't die from a heart attack, the next two top causes of death are cancer and stroke.
So which is it going to be? Think things through so that you don't overly increase your odds of dying of something you dislike more...
It is true having clogged arteries might reduce your quality of life - can't climb stairs etc.
But the point is practically everyone dies eventually.
I thought it's all relative :).
OK assuming someone does create an intelligence by simulating a human brain. I still won't call that a breakthrough, unless you _understand_ the _why_ and _how_ , much much better than we do now.
Otherwise, if I wanted a nonhuman intelligence without really understanding stuff, I could always go to the pet store and buy one. Doh...
It's not too far fetched that the biotech people could create an "artificial" creature with human level intelligence (and before the Computer Science people, or "classic" AI people). By the AI field's current standards, wouldn't that still qualify as an AI?
That's why I think the AI field is still a dismal field - a lot of these AI researchers are doing _crap_, and many actually seem to think they're making significant progress when doing it. Sorry if I sound harsh, but hey even I can come up with bullshit that doesn't significantly advance the field.
The main advantage I see with the "simulate" approach over the biotech "grow it" approach is you could probably copy a desired training result more easily. Maybe that's all that counts - you could scale it better.
How about enhancing existing humans and animals with current technology, instead of trying to create a full AI? What problem are you trying to solve? Or are you trying to just create a new problem, or create a solution looking for a problem?
Why is there trade in the first place?
:) )... Those that bet big on the bubbles bursting "real soon now", lost. The rest who just pulled out, didn't make as much.
You trade A to someone for B because you value B more than A, and that someone thinks the other way.
Why? Maybe that person needs "A" _now_.
That person might still think it's a crap time to sell the share, but might need the cash to keep the house/car.
The other thing is lots of people are stupid. And sometimes the stock market has a way of making the "smart" look stupid.
There were a lot of people who figured some bubbles should have burst a long time ago, but they just kept going for a few more years (irrational exuberance? What's that?
The problem with too loose a definition is then lots of people end up being considered insiders...
;).
;).
For example, say X does Y classes for the wives of big bosses, and X might be able to tell whether the various companies are doing well or not just from observing the wives
Even if the husbands aren't telling the wives that their companies just had record profits, the new cars/vacation/etc they bought for their wives might reveal stuff.
Sure it's not 100%, but apparently it worked well enough for someone I know
Exactly.
You don't even need to use the owner's eye to register when secretly turning that feature on. You could use a unique fake "eye" instead. I don't think the camera will care that much.
If the owner doesn't remove the "sig", then maybe one day you'll know who posted that photo scoop...
The usual:
:).
Retry (it might work the second try)
Restart (the program)
Reboot (the O/S)
Reinstall (the program, and various versions)
Reformat
Reinstall (the O/S + application)
Reinstall (another O/S + application)
Retry (who knows...)
Resign
Resume (rhymes with cafe)
Resume (rhymes with consume)
Then there was: plug and pray and plug and pay and plug and pray and plug and play and plug and pray and plug and yay... finally it works
Why this vendetta against smokers? Why should they ban smoking in bars? Just tax "smoking allowed" bars/restaurants/etc more.
;).
:).
I'm a nonsmoker and I think smokers should have a choice too, pls some nonsmokers don't mind hanging out with people who smoke.
So many countries are worried about aging populations, but when smokers step up to sacrifice themselves for the good of the country, governments take harsh and excessive measures to stop them.
There's a high chance you are going to die of something expensive to treat, smokers just do it earlier, and they pay for it and more if you tax things right.
Same goes for the obese.
I'm not saying we shouldn't educate people of the dangers, and yes we should certainly discourage children from such stuff.
It would also be best if most people didn't die way too early e.g. < 30, since I believe the payback period is a bit longer given the total costs of bringing a human up. Smoking isn't that dangerous so smokers tend to die not so far from retirement age. Note: if they survive past retirement, they still keep paying taxes - tobacco taxes
I told a colleague something similar before, and he promptly tried to quit smoking