From my limited experience as a keyboardist and watching guitarists do their stuff, it's easier to replace a pianist with a computer than it is to replace a guitarist.
With most pianists the hammers are the only things that touch the strings directly. And the hammers are controlled by the keys.
Whereas guitarists get to manipulate the sound producing parts of their instrument more directly AND it is normal/expected of them.
Basically there's lots of stuff guitarists do with their guitars that goes beyond just statically holding a string down and plucking it. There's sliding down the frets, there's tapping, slapping, strumming, plucking of the strings, there's also stretching the strings. There's so much they do and can do AND it's _normal_ for a decent guitarist to do it.
So if it wasn't a live performance I wouldn't bother with getting the best pianists (in terms of technique). Computers can make up for bad technique for pianists. Just bang it into MIDI and fix it later. What you need is someone to come up with the music.
However, for guitars, drums, violinists, lead vocals, it's better to get the real thing.
Eventually you might have technology and musicians who can recreate and manipulate artificial/simulated vocals - down to the last breathy hiss.
But you still will need people who know music and sound. And there are lots of people who know a significant part of their music and sound through their subconscious reflexes out of years of practice with their chosen instrument whether it be their voice or a guitar. So they may still need to use an instrument to create music rather than clinically entering data into a computer.
In fact, to me such devices are just toys.
What would be interesting would be something that sampled a sound source (e.g. your vocals) and continuously did a "diff" (in frequency+phase domain e.g. FFT+phase) between T and T-1 seconds and applied that "diff" to another sound source and thus alter the sound.
I'm NOT talking about vocoders. This is subtly but significantly different.
With a device that does what I'm talking about, if you sing "Aaaa" at a particular pitch and then raise that pitch whilst maintaining the "aaa", and use that to manipulate a violin sound, the violin will still sound like a violin and just rise in pitch. However if you sing "aaaa" at a particular pitch and change it to "ooo" whilst maintaining a pitch, the violin sound will become more "ooo" in nature and remain at the same pitch.
Whereas a vocoder would make it sound like you are saying Aaa and Ooo with the violin as your vocal chords.
Because he knew how to secure it but he didn't AND when this SUV guy comes around and uses it for hours, instead of just securing his AP (or even just switching it off for 20 minutes) and avoiding major nastiness all around, he proceeds to call the cops.
That's why IMO he's not a victim. He's an asshole. And the guy who was arrested is more of a victim here. A victim of the asshole.
When you know of many ways to fix things and you knowingly pick a nasty way, even if it's legal, you're being an asshole.
No need for stupid analogies here.
Personally, I feel there should be a reserved TLD called.here and so if you aren't an asshole and want to voluntarily allow people access you can set up a page at http://here/
This way at least polite and well mannered people are able to always see what services are available, what are the terms and conditions etc for the network they are using.
You can search for tldhere (Top Level DNS Name for addressing by physical context) for other possible uses for a.here type TLD.
I haven't been able to get ICANN to reserve it (not for me, for everyone). Maybe it's because I don't have USD100K to throw at them.
Heh, one of my ex-colleagues used to study in the USA (Iowa I think), and once he was travelling inter-state, he sped at 100mph and passed a patrol car.
The cop then zoomed after him, pulled alongside and took a look at him and then passed him.
My clueless friend still didn't know it was a cop (!), and for some stupid reason he then drove faster and over-took the cop!
So in the end the cop pulled him over and asked what he was doing... Heh, surprisingly he didn't get booked for that!
Are GPUs as reliable as CPUs for these tasks? I mean if there's an error in a GPU you might get a brief rendering glitch and lots of people may not notice.
In fact, some people are actually talking about ways of testing and allowing slightly broken graphics hardware to be used in situations where the _visual_ results won't be that off.
Uh. MSN messenger's service is significantly more unreliable than Yahoo Messenger's service. So much more downtime.
That is a big drawback for me.
There have been so many times that I am unable to log on and use MSN Messenger - and the problem is at _their_ end. Whereas that's very rare for Yahoo Messenger.
Maybe it's fine if you are one of those preteens using it just to send "winks" to their friends, but as a communication service, it needs to be a lot more reliable.
Lots of people try to influence the vote. That's normal.
I was just disagreeing with jesdynf's claim that a system where a voter can prove he/she voted a particular way is so terrible.
IMO it'll be more as you say, the various groups will just try to influence the vote (as expected), BUT most (nearly all?) won't dare ask for the receipts. Because that automatically puts them in the Evil category in almost anyone's books. And thus they'll lose a lot of influence (and possibly risk going to jail etc).
Maybe the Mafia can get away with that sort of thing (and then only with their own members) but most legal organizations can't. The Mafia trying to illegally influence nonmembers to provably vote a particular way is most likely to be not worth it - not enough bang for buck...
They might as well do what most sane Organizations/Corps do and buy/sponsor the politicians they want. That way only the politicians they want have a chance of being voted in.
After all it doesn't matter if Candidate A beats Candidate B when you've already given BOTH money so that candidates C-Z (which you don't want) have far lower chances.
It's a bit like a magician asking people to pick "Any card" from a hand, when he's already chosen the cards he wants and eliminated the rest of the deck.
Strangely most people don't seem to notice or care that the magic trick has become more of joke with Diebold's system. Like having cards which can change their card faces on demand.
AFAIK forcing people to vote a particular way is illegal. Rallies that are big enough to significantly bias voting outcomes are probably going to be hard to keep secret.
If unions etc can get away with illegally _forcing_ thousands and thousands of people to do something illegal against their will, then your country is in pretty deep shit already.
After all what's to stop them from forcing thousands and thousands of people to do other illegal stuff too?
You're basically saying that nearly 100% of the citizens involved will just roll-over, and the authorities etc won't do anything to uphold the law (even given a few substantiated complaints).
You're just so fixated over anonymous voting that you're not thinking straight.
Sure there are better systems that are anonymous, and if possible they should probably be used instead.
The fact that the US managed to end up with a voting system where ALL the votes could be tampered with without any clear trail, shows to me that you guys are kicking up a big fuss over the wrong things.
The public seem to get worked up over less important issues and totally unaware or apathetic over the important ones.
At this rate it sure doesn't look good for the USA.
Were you even reading? If churches/unions/bosses/leaders/spouses can get away with forcing an overall total of many thousands of voters to knowingly vote a particular way against their will AND get away with it, the country is already in so deep shit that that's a minor concern.
In practice sure some people might get away with it. But just because some people can still get away with stuff doesn't mean a system isn't useful. So what if that means it isn't perfect.
You really want to know the difference between building houses and building software?
With software, the blueprint actually compiles and runs. The clay models kind of work.A ND it costs about the same to make the blueprint or clay models as it does to make the real thing.
So Sales and Management naturally sell the blueprint (v1.0), and the clay models (v2.0). The real thing is version 3.0. And after some renovations to make the place decent it's version 3.1.
Which is a bigger problem? Someone manipulating a few votes or someone messing up thousands or more?
By the time a country can allow people to force thousands of voters to _knowingly_ vote a particular way, AND get away with it, there are probably far worse things happening already in that country. e.g. Breakdown of law and order, evil dictator already in power etc.
Whereas right now the US system could theoretically allow people to _secretly_ add/modify thousands of votes. It doesn't require a breakdown in law and order or evil dictators or a totally screwed up country, but it could result in all that.
Sure the suggested system is not a perfect system, but the existing system is so bad, that replacing it with something better but not perfect would not be such a terrible thing.
The US people should get their priorities straight. They shouldn't be spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives choosing the leaders in Iraq. They should be spending it choosing the leaders in the USA.
Any talk about cutting cost, or not being able to afford better systems is just plain ridiculous. Given that the two main candidates spent hundreds of millions. Choosing the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world should be treated more seriously.
If the US can't even do that properly, perhaps they should also outsource the handling of their elections to India. India is the world's largest democracy. And their current election system is definitely more robust than the current US system.
Well. Trying to be nice if possible. Not that it matters as I don't have enough leverage to be heard by ICANN - I did email Ms Dyson etc some years back about this, and she did reply, but nothing much happened.
That said the ORSC's use of.here isn't very much different from.biz or most of the other TLDs they're just "Yet Another Dot Com" - only less popular. So far at least.xxx is something different - even if it's not a perfect solution, I can see how it could be useful.
My proposal for.here is at least not just another dot Com. I argue that it has some potential technical use.
At worst if it becomes popular it allows an easy way to figure out whose WiFi network one is using and whether it's _intentionally_open_ (if one is polite one might prefer to use networks that are intentionally open). Just http://here/ to check. All you need to support that is a appropriately configured DHCP server, DNS server and a webserver. No need for software that captures and redirect initial web access (and how do people figure out how to get back to that initial page?).
At best, it provides people a more standardized way to access all sorts of services, objects, entities that have greater relevance in that general physical area.
This article proposes the reservation of a special use TLD to allow a more convenient addressing of devices by general physical location or context.
Introduction
As wireless networking and devices become more common there may be a need for a convenient way to address hosts by physical location or context, especially when the users themselves are using mobile or wearable devices.
A step towards this could be by reserving a special public use TLD (.here in the examples). Then this TLD can be independently hosted at various locations, so that each resulting.here domain falls under the context of that particular location. For a similar concept see RFC1918.
Say if the user wishes to control an air conditioner in a room, the user could visit https://airconditioner.here/ for the control page. The user could also "bookmark" popular settings such as https://airconditioner.here/settemp?celsius=25 and use it from room to room (assuming the air conditioners accept the same parameters).
Registration with an area could be done with DHCP [RFC2131] and dynamic DNS.
Various Considerations
Users could get the wrong address depending on how the default domain search is implemented - e.g. xxxx.here first, then xxxx.mydomain.com or vice versa. Also, it should be assumed that parties controlling the physical location could attempt to spoof or subvert communications.
Specifying.here. does not guarantee locality. Users may inadvertently or intentionally access devices at a different physical location.
Third parties could reserve a similar TLD (e.g..her.) in order to catch typographical errors or unsuspecting users. As.her. and.he. may well become future TLDs, perhaps a less vulnerable name than.here should be used instead. A less elegant alternative is to also reserve the typos, but the Gere's (e.g. Richard) of the world may protest.
The.here TLD has already been reserved by a member of the ORSC. So to avoid conflict another TLD may have to be chosen, giving due consideration to the various alternative root zones. It seems that.local or.loc could be used but at risk of confusion with.localhost [RFC2606].
References
[RFC2606] D. Eastlake and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", RFC2606, June 1999.
[RFC2131] R. Droms, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", March 1997.
[RFC1918] Y. Rekhter, B. Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. J. de Groot, E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", February 1996.
Patenting/Copyrighting something prevents the use and access of something to everyone except a select number of people or to limited number of scenarios. If that is done unethically (e.g. retroactive extensions to copyright/patent terms) it could be far closer to theft than copying something will ever be.
For example, if a work or idea is public domain (or is about to enter public domain) but some rich corporations bribe the lawmakers to change the laws so that work is no longer the public's or does not become the publics, then one can argue it has been stolen from the public. The public no longer have access to the work.
In contrast copying something is not theft, since the owners still have use and access of the originals. Copyright infringement is an illegal breach of a monopoly on copying of a particular work that was granted by the State.
If one rather not rely on libpcap being secure, one could whip up a perl/python server listening on some port, that'll handle the opening and closing of access to sshd and other stuff. That way you can use simple firewall rules which are less likely to have issues. Whatever it is you have to rely on the firewall code and kernel IP stack being secure.
Sure it's an active server that's listening, but it's a lot easier to secure a perl/python program from buffer overflows and other exploits... You could still DoS it, but it's trivial to DoS the target's internet connection anyway.
Run the browser as another user separate from your main user account. You can do that whilst still using your main account in Windows NT/2000/XP and most linux distros.
This way when your browser is exploited, you only risk all that your browser account can access[1].
There are some issues e.g. Mozilla on SuSE 9.1 refuses to save files with permissions allowing my main account easy access to the files (saves as 600). Yes I tried the umask thing. No it doesn't work.
Windows+IE does that file permissions thing better. I should upgrade Mozilla to one which isn't broken, but then it won't be part of the SuSE distro anymore and I've got better things to do than to regularly manage updates etc of Mozilla myself.
[1] Sure there could be exploitable security problems in graphics drivers and the windowing/desktop software, or some dumb kernel bug, but these are usually much harder to exploit than exploiting the typical _mind_ of the average joe - who'd open encrypted attachments, enter the password, and run them.
"I have 36 Go SCSI 15 000 RPM drives. I paid them 170 euros (that is what you call really expensive I guess). Spindle speed is not even the best performance factor, the access time is."
170 euros? A 200GB SATA drive is about 100euros. I wonder if you limit your partition used to the fastest 18% of the 200GB (36GB) drive whether you'd have comparable access time. You'd be seeking from a small number of cylinders very close to each other. The odds you need to seek will also be less given the track densities. Of course you'd still have to wait 4ms on average for sectors to spin around. Assuming if you use the full 200GB it takes 4.5ms more on average to move the heads and read data, perhaps if you use only 20% of the drive you'd only need 1 to 2ms more to move the heads and that brings it close to SCSI territory for about half the cost.
Get two SATA drives do the same thing and RAID1 them and you'd have faster access time AND you'd have redundancy, for about the same cost.
Is a SCSI drive that much faster once you do that?
In fact if you don't mind sacrificing write speeds (and storage space) for faster read speeds, you could write the data twice or more times per track. For example, you write the same data, 180 degrees apart on a track (or every 120 degrees if you are doing 3 x). That way you effectively have twice or 3x the RPM for reads (but your writes are slow). I wonder if anyone has done that in practice though;).
There's a big difference though. The old testamant part you are talking about refers more to the laws governing Israel. And according to the Bible the land of Israel is limited to a particular area.
There was no call of expansion to other territories. Sure the chosen people were called to wipe everyone out in the promised land, but once the land was taken, that was it. This is unlike the practice of many other nations and peoples of around that time.
So whilst Israel was deadly to the Canaanites (that said Israel disobeyed and intermarried), it was no threat to most other nations.
Christianity is expansionist, but if you look at what the religion actually says, it encourages _love_ and _service_ as part of the expansion process. Spreading Good News, and making disciples of men. Not spreading violence and making corpses of men.
The "architecture" of Islam as a religion is more prone to violence than the other major religions. And in Islam, the killing isn't restricted to any particular area as far as I know.
If any muslim objects to me saying that, he should start objecting to the action of his brothers first. Muslims like to loudly object and claim that Islam is a peaceful religion, but their voices are rather too muted when their brothers interpret/practice Islam in violent ways. Their brothers can quote Islamic verses justifying their actions, can the pacifists/moderates manage to counter those verses with other verses?
Contrast the Jewish laws - the death penalties etc are for people living within Israel or Israelites who break the various laws.
Buddhism is pretty much a pacifist religion. Hinduism is a bit harder to pin down, but I sure don't see that many calls to violence from their holy scrolls/books.
With Capitalism (with the big C) - it seems killing people is OK if it is more profitable to do so, than to not do so.
They could always slow the rate email enters the system, especially from outside.
Even through a 2Mbps line it takes quite a while to fill 200GB of space, and that's like what USD100?
(Unless of course there's the equivalent of an unfiltered everyone@company.com and sending a 10MB mail to that account means everyone gets a 10MB mail...;) ).
If you can afford 100Mbps lines, you can probably afford more than 200GB of space. Fifty 200GB hdd = USD5K. OK you may buy one of those expensive storage arrays, it's still going to take a while to fill it up via external_ email.
Lack of storage space would not be the problem here.
Signal vs noise categorization would be the problem. So you may be able to sell them expensive anti-spam solutions.
There seems to be more common for legislators to keep adding laws than for them to repeal them. And they become a burden on society - you can't remember and keep all the zillions of laws.
So except maybe for constitutional laws and a small set of critical laws (e.g. involving life, death, family), all laws should have a lifespan.
The longer the lifespan required, the more approval needed from more legislators or even a referendum.
Sure it means more work for legislators just to keep laws around, but at least it'll take extra effort to keep a stupid law alive way after the stupid people who made it have long passed on.
Alternatively, laws should have a half-life. That is to say the various jail-terms and fines in each law are halved each time their respective half-life period passes.
If it seems like too much work to keep all the laws around, then perhaps there really are too many laws.
Slashdot Mirror
From my limited experience as a keyboardist and watching guitarists do their stuff, it's easier to replace a pianist with a computer than it is to replace a guitarist.
With most pianists the hammers are the only things that touch the strings directly. And the hammers are controlled by the keys.
Whereas guitarists get to manipulate the sound producing parts of their instrument more directly AND it is normal/expected of them.
Basically there's lots of stuff guitarists do with their guitars that goes beyond just statically holding a string down and plucking it. There's sliding down the frets, there's tapping, slapping, strumming, plucking of the strings, there's also stretching the strings. There's so much they do and can do AND it's _normal_ for a decent guitarist to do it.
So if it wasn't a live performance I wouldn't bother with getting the best pianists (in terms of technique). Computers can make up for bad technique for pianists. Just bang it into MIDI and fix it later. What you need is someone to come up with the music.
However, for guitars, drums, violinists, lead vocals, it's better to get the real thing.
Eventually you might have technology and musicians who can recreate and manipulate artificial/simulated vocals - down to the last breathy hiss.
But you still will need people who know music and sound. And there are lots of people who know a significant part of their music and sound through their subconscious reflexes out of years of practice with their chosen instrument whether it be their voice or a guitar. So they may still need to use an instrument to create music rather than clinically entering data into a computer.
In fact, to me such devices are just toys.
What would be interesting would be something that sampled a sound source (e.g. your vocals) and continuously did a "diff" (in frequency+phase domain e.g. FFT+phase) between T and T-1 seconds and applied that "diff" to another sound source and thus alter the sound.
I'm NOT talking about vocoders. This is subtly but significantly different.
With a device that does what I'm talking about, if you sing "Aaaa" at a particular pitch and then raise that pitch whilst maintaining the "aaa", and use that to manipulate a violin sound, the violin will still sound like a violin and just rise in pitch. However if you sing "aaaa" at a particular pitch and change it to "ooo" whilst maintaining a pitch, the violin sound will become more "ooo" in nature and remain at the same pitch.
Whereas a vocoder would make it sound like you are saying Aaa and Ooo with the violin as your vocal chords.
Well he's still an asshole.
.here and so if you aren't an asshole and want to voluntarily allow people access you can set up a page at http://here/
.here type TLD.
Because he knew how to secure it but he didn't AND when this SUV guy comes around and uses it for hours, instead of just securing his AP (or even just switching it off for 20 minutes) and avoiding major nastiness all around, he proceeds to call the cops.
That's why IMO he's not a victim. He's an asshole. And the guy who was arrested is more of a victim here. A victim of the asshole.
When you know of many ways to fix things and you knowingly pick a nasty way, even if it's legal, you're being an asshole.
No need for stupid analogies here.
Personally, I feel there should be a reserved TLD called
This way at least polite and well mannered people are able to always see what services are available, what are the terms and conditions etc for the network they are using.
You can search for tldhere (Top Level DNS Name for addressing by physical context) for other possible uses for a
I haven't been able to get ICANN to reserve it (not for me, for everyone). Maybe it's because I don't have USD100K to throw at them.
Heh, one of my ex-colleagues used to study in the USA (Iowa I think), and once he was travelling inter-state, he sped at 100mph and passed a patrol car.
The cop then zoomed after him, pulled alongside and took a look at him and then passed him.
My clueless friend still didn't know it was a cop (!), and for some stupid reason he then drove faster and over-took the cop!
So in the end the cop pulled him over and asked what he was doing... Heh, surprisingly he didn't get booked for that!
Are GPUs as reliable as CPUs for these tasks? I mean if there's an error in a GPU you might get a brief rendering glitch and lots of people may not notice.
In fact, some people are actually talking about ways of testing and allowing slightly broken graphics hardware to be used in situations where the _visual_ results won't be that off.
Actually I think Korean could be more efficient - it's pure alphabet, 24 characters.
Whereas Japanese has 3 different character sets.
Net is zero. Or less than zero.
The ascii value of "3" is 51.
Yawn.
Uh. MSN messenger's service is significantly more unreliable than Yahoo Messenger's service. So much more downtime.
That is a big drawback for me.
There have been so many times that I am unable to log on and use MSN Messenger - and the problem is at _their_ end. Whereas that's very rare for Yahoo Messenger.
Maybe it's fine if you are one of those preteens using it just to send "winks" to their friends, but as a communication service, it needs to be a lot more reliable.
Is that reasoning applicable to RAID controllers too?
Well that's one way to ensure that your eggs are always soft boiled...
Lots of people try to influence the vote. That's normal.
I was just disagreeing with jesdynf's claim that a system where a voter can prove he/she voted a particular way is so terrible.
IMO it'll be more as you say, the various groups will just try to influence the vote (as expected), BUT most (nearly all?) won't dare ask for the receipts. Because that automatically puts them in the Evil category in almost anyone's books. And thus they'll lose a lot of influence (and possibly risk going to jail etc).
Maybe the Mafia can get away with that sort of thing (and then only with their own members) but most legal organizations can't. The Mafia trying to illegally influence nonmembers to provably vote a particular way is most likely to be not worth it - not enough bang for buck...
They might as well do what most sane Organizations/Corps do and buy/sponsor the politicians they want. That way only the politicians they want have a chance of being voted in.
After all it doesn't matter if Candidate A beats Candidate B when you've already given BOTH money so that candidates C-Z (which you don't want) have far lower chances.
It's a bit like a magician asking people to pick "Any card" from a hand, when he's already chosen the cards he wants and eliminated the rest of the deck.
Strangely most people don't seem to notice or care that the magic trick has become more of joke with Diebold's system. Like having cards which can change their card faces on demand.
AFAIK forcing people to vote a particular way is illegal. Rallies that are big enough to significantly bias voting outcomes are probably going to be hard to keep secret.
If unions etc can get away with illegally _forcing_ thousands and thousands of people to do something illegal against their will, then your country is in pretty deep shit already.
After all what's to stop them from forcing thousands and thousands of people to do other illegal stuff too?
You're basically saying that nearly 100% of the citizens involved will just roll-over, and the authorities etc won't do anything to uphold the law (even given a few substantiated complaints).
You're just so fixated over anonymous voting that you're not thinking straight.
Sure there are better systems that are anonymous, and if possible they should probably be used instead.
The fact that the US managed to end up with a voting system where ALL the votes could be tampered with without any clear trail, shows to me that you guys are kicking up a big fuss over the wrong things.
The public seem to get worked up over less important issues and totally unaware or apathetic over the important ones.
At this rate it sure doesn't look good for the USA.
Sure I'm out of my mind. But at least I have one.
Were you even reading? If churches/unions/bosses/leaders/spouses can get away with forcing an overall total of many thousands of voters to knowingly vote a particular way against their will AND get away with it, the country is already in so deep shit that that's a minor concern.
In practice sure some people might get away with it. But just because some people can still get away with stuff doesn't mean a system isn't useful. So what if that means it isn't perfect.
First thing I thought of was sendmail, bind or any of the other ISC stuff ;).
There are tons of C programs that look valid, but given some prompting can behave in arbitrarily evil ways.
If you want it to automatically behave in an evil way without a "little extra encouragement" then I suppose it would be a bit harder.
You really want to know the difference between building houses and building software?
With software, the blueprint actually compiles and runs. The clay models kind of work.A ND it costs about the same to make the blueprint or clay models as it does to make the real thing.
So Sales and Management naturally sell the blueprint (v1.0), and the clay models (v2.0). The real thing is version 3.0. And after some renovations to make the place decent it's version 3.1.
That IMO is why most software sucks.
Which is a bigger problem? Someone manipulating a few votes or someone messing up thousands or more?
By the time a country can allow people to force thousands of voters to _knowingly_ vote a particular way, AND get away with it, there are probably far worse things happening already in that country. e.g. Breakdown of law and order, evil dictator already in power etc.
Whereas right now the US system could theoretically allow people to _secretly_ add/modify thousands of votes. It doesn't require a breakdown in law and order or evil dictators or a totally screwed up country, but it could result in all that.
Sure the suggested system is not a perfect system, but the existing system is so bad, that replacing it with something better but not perfect would not be such a terrible thing.
The US people should get their priorities straight. They shouldn't be spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives choosing the leaders in Iraq. They should be spending it choosing the leaders in the USA.
Any talk about cutting cost, or not being able to afford better systems is just plain ridiculous. Given that the two main candidates spent hundreds of millions. Choosing the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world should be treated more seriously.
If the US can't even do that properly, perhaps they should also outsource the handling of their elections to India. India is the world's largest democracy. And their current election system is definitely more robust than the current US system.
Sheesh.
Well. Trying to be nice if possible. Not that it matters as I don't have enough leverage to be heard by ICANN - I did email Ms Dyson etc some years back about this, and she did reply, but nothing much happened.
.here isn't very much different from .biz or most of the other TLDs they're just "Yet Another Dot Com" - only less popular. So far at least .xxx is something different - even if it's not a perfect solution, I can see how it could be useful.
.here is at least not just another dot Com. I argue that it has some potential technical use.
That said the ORSC's use of
My proposal for
At worst if it becomes popular it allows an easy way to figure out whose WiFi network one is using and whether it's _intentionally_open_ (if one is polite one might prefer to use networks that are intentionally open). Just http://here/ to check. All you need to support that is a appropriately configured DHCP server, DNS server and a webserver. No need for software that captures and redirect initial web access (and how do people figure out how to get back to that initial page?).
At best, it provides people a more standardized way to access all sorts of services, objects, entities that have greater relevance in that general physical area.
This article proposes the reservation of a special use TLD to allow a more convenient addressing of devices by general physical location or context.
.here domain falls under the context of that particular location. For a similar concept see RFC1918.
.here TLD
.here. does not guarantee locality. Users may inadvertently or intentionally access devices at a different physical location.
.her.) in order to catch typographical errors or unsuspecting users. As .her. and .he. may well become future TLDs, perhaps a less vulnerable name than .here should be used instead. A less elegant alternative is to also reserve the typos, but the Gere's (e.g. Richard) of the world may protest.
.here TLD has already been reserved by a member of the ORSC. So to avoid conflict another TLD may have to be chosen, giving due consideration to the various alternative root zones. It seems that .local or .loc could be used but at risk of confusion with .localhost [RFC2606].
Introduction
As wireless networking and devices become more common there may be a need for a convenient way to address hosts by physical location or context, especially when the users themselves are using mobile or wearable devices.
A step towards this could be by reserving a special public use TLD (.here in the examples). Then this TLD can be independently hosted at various locations, so that each resulting
Example Usage of
As an example a user could obtain a list of registered devices in each particular room or building by visiting https://all.here/ or perhaps just https://here/. Other forms could include https://who.here/ and https://what.here/
Say if the user wishes to control an air conditioner in a room, the user could visit https://airconditioner.here/ for the control page. The user could also "bookmark" popular settings such as https://airconditioner.here/settemp?celsius=25 and use it from room to room (assuming the air conditioners accept the same parameters).
Users of wearable devices could also address and access each other in a similar manner after registering with the location - e.g. https://lyeoh.here/sendobjectform or https://somebody.here/getobject?id=12345
Registration with an area could be done with DHCP [RFC2131] and dynamic DNS.
Various Considerations
Users could get the wrong address depending on how the default domain search is implemented - e.g. xxxx.here first, then xxxx.mydomain.com or vice versa. Also, it should be assumed that parties controlling the physical location could attempt to spoof or subvert communications.
Specifying
Third parties could reserve a similar TLD (e.g.
The
References
[RFC2606] D. Eastlake and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", RFC2606, June 1999.
[RFC2131] R. Droms, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", March 1997.
[RFC1918] Y. Rekhter, B. Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. J. de Groot, E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", February 1996.
Patenting/Copyrighting something prevents the use and access of something to everyone except a select number of people or to limited number of scenarios. If that is done unethically (e.g. retroactive extensions to copyright/patent terms) it could be far closer to theft than copying something will ever be.
For example, if a work or idea is public domain (or is about to enter public domain) but some rich corporations bribe the lawmakers to change the laws so that work is no longer the public's or does not become the publics, then one can argue it has been stolen from the public. The public no longer have access to the work.
In contrast copying something is not theft, since the owners still have use and access of the originals. Copyright infringement is an illegal breach of a monopoly on copying of a particular work that was granted by the State.
Hope that makes things a bit clearer.
Haven't there been security bugs with libpcap?
If one rather not rely on libpcap being secure, one could whip up a perl/python server listening on some port, that'll handle the opening and closing of access to sshd and other stuff. That way you can use simple firewall rules which are less likely to have issues. Whatever it is you have to rely on the firewall code and kernel IP stack being secure.
Sure it's an active server that's listening, but it's a lot easier to secure a perl/python program from buffer overflows and other exploits... You could still DoS it, but it's trivial to DoS the target's internet connection anyway.
It's not that IE is that insecure.
Run the browser as another user separate from your main user account. You can do that whilst still using your main account in Windows NT/2000/XP and most linux distros.
This way when your browser is exploited, you only risk all that your browser account can access[1].
There are some issues e.g. Mozilla on SuSE 9.1 refuses to save files with permissions allowing my main account easy access to the files (saves as 600). Yes I tried the umask thing. No it doesn't work.
Windows+IE does that file permissions thing better. I should upgrade Mozilla to one which isn't broken, but then it won't be part of the SuSE distro anymore and I've got better things to do than to regularly manage updates etc of Mozilla myself.
[1] Sure there could be exploitable security problems in graphics drivers and the windowing/desktop software, or some dumb kernel bug, but these are usually much harder to exploit than exploiting the typical _mind_ of the average joe - who'd open encrypted attachments, enter the password, and run them.
"I have 36 Go SCSI 15 000 RPM drives. I paid them 170 euros (that is what you call really expensive I guess). Spindle speed is not even the best performance factor, the access time is."
;).
170 euros? A 200GB SATA drive is about 100euros. I wonder if you limit your partition used to the fastest 18% of the 200GB (36GB) drive whether you'd have comparable access time. You'd be seeking from a small number of cylinders very close to each other. The odds you need to seek will also be less given the track densities. Of course you'd still have to wait 4ms on average for sectors to spin around. Assuming if you use the full 200GB it takes 4.5ms more on average to move the heads and read data, perhaps if you use only 20% of the drive you'd only need 1 to 2ms more to move the heads and that brings it close to SCSI territory for about half the cost.
Get two SATA drives do the same thing and RAID1 them and you'd have faster access time AND you'd have redundancy, for about the same cost.
Is a SCSI drive that much faster once you do that?
In fact if you don't mind sacrificing write speeds (and storage space) for faster read speeds, you could write the data twice or more times per track. For example, you write the same data, 180 degrees apart on a track (or every 120 degrees if you are doing 3 x). That way you effectively have twice or 3x the RPM for reads (but your writes are slow). I wonder if anyone has done that in practice though
There's a big difference though. The old testamant part you are talking about refers more to the laws governing Israel. And according to the Bible the land of Israel is limited to a particular area.
There was no call of expansion to other territories. Sure the chosen people were called to wipe everyone out in the promised land, but once the land was taken, that was it. This is unlike the practice of many other nations and peoples of around that time.
So whilst Israel was deadly to the Canaanites (that said Israel disobeyed and intermarried), it was no threat to most other nations.
Christianity is expansionist, but if you look at what the religion actually says, it encourages _love_ and _service_ as part of the expansion process. Spreading Good News, and making disciples of men. Not spreading violence and making corpses of men.
The "architecture" of Islam as a religion is more prone to violence than the other major religions. And in Islam, the killing isn't restricted to any particular area as far as I know.
If any muslim objects to me saying that, he should start objecting to the action of his brothers first. Muslims like to loudly object and claim that Islam is a peaceful religion, but their voices are rather too muted when their brothers interpret/practice Islam in violent ways. Their brothers can quote Islamic verses justifying their actions, can the pacifists/moderates manage to counter those verses with other verses?
Contrast the Jewish laws - the death penalties etc are for people living within Israel or Israelites who break the various laws.
Buddhism is pretty much a pacifist religion. Hinduism is a bit harder to pin down, but I sure don't see that many calls to violence from their holy scrolls/books.
With Capitalism (with the big C) - it seems killing people is OK if it is more profitable to do so, than to not do so.
They could always slow the rate email enters the system, especially from outside.
;) ).
Even through a 2Mbps line it takes quite a while to fill 200GB of space, and that's like what USD100?
(Unless of course there's the equivalent of an unfiltered everyone@company.com and sending a 10MB mail to that account means everyone gets a 10MB mail...
If you can afford 100Mbps lines, you can probably afford more than 200GB of space. Fifty 200GB hdd = USD5K. OK you may buy one of those expensive storage arrays, it's still going to take a while to fill it up via external_ email.
Lack of storage space would not be the problem here.
Signal vs noise categorization would be the problem. So you may be able to sell them expensive anti-spam solutions.
There seems to be more common for legislators to keep adding laws than for them to repeal them. And they become a burden on society - you can't remember and keep all the zillions of laws.
So except maybe for constitutional laws and a small set of critical laws (e.g. involving life, death, family), all laws should have a lifespan.
The longer the lifespan required, the more approval needed from more legislators or even a referendum.
Sure it means more work for legislators just to keep laws around, but at least it'll take extra effort to keep a stupid law alive way after the stupid people who made it have long passed on.
Alternatively, laws should have a half-life. That is to say the various jail-terms and fines in each law are halved each time their respective half-life period passes.
If it seems like too much work to keep all the laws around, then perhaps there really are too many laws.