That's sort of true. The content of the speech, together with the *recipients* of the speech aswell as the *context* all play a part in deciding if a certain statement is legal or illegal.
For example, there are things you're allowed to say or show, but not in public, or not in places accessible to minors, or not to a minor. Some of the same things are however legal if the context is such that you're obviously engaging in satire or humour.
Your main point stands though; saying I can't make a political speech over [communication-channel] is blatantly unconstitutional, if they can forbid one channel, they can forbid all channels, which has pretty much the same effect as forbidding the speech outright.
Its cheaper than that if cheap is your goal. You get 5TB for $6/month from Dreamhost, for example. (and they're not the cheapest ones), this works out to 833GB for each dollar.
5TB is enough to distribute one million 4MB songs, and leave you 1TB left-over for other content, like HTML-pages and whatnot.
I don't think, by the way, that the pirated-things are nessecarily that much more popular than the Linux-distros. But people consume much more of them. While you need only at most one linux-distro every half-year or whatever, you can easily watch 5 movies a WEEK, which means in a year you'll download 250 movies and 2 linux-distros, so 99% movies, assuming they're all the same size.
You're right: digital distribution over the Internet is mindbogglingly cheap. Really really close to "too cheap to meter".
It depends. How much area is "wasted" if I install solar powerpanels on the roof of my house ? How unlikely is it that future solar-panels can even do double-duty and *be* the roof, while simultaneously producing power ?
Sometimes you -want- to reduce the pressure in a pipeline carrying water. That is typically the case in mountaineous regions where the water comes from a high lake. For example, where I grew up housing was spread-out from about 600 feet to 0 above sealevel whereas the drinking-water came from a lake at 3000 feet.
This requires pressure-reducers, infact several of them, because 3000 feet worth of pressure is MUCH more than you want to have in your drinking-water-supply. (that's a pressure of 100 bar, or 1400 pounds pro square-inch afterall)
Pressure-reduction is typically done by wasting the energy as heat, done by special valves.
Could (perhaps should) be done by putting a hydroelectric generator in instead.
The energy is substantial. At 1000 meters of fall, every cubic metre of water going trough has 2.5 Kwh excess energy that could be tapped. And even a small town such as the one I grew up in (~4000 people) consume several thousand cubic metres of water a day.
Most people don't even replace their lightbulbs with more energy-efficient ones. And that's a 1-minute job. (zero-extra if you do it the next time the bulb burns out anyway)
Also, you're ignoring the PAYBACK time. It doesn't matter if something is easy to install if buying it costs more than it could ever earn you back. It's a loss. Doubly so if producing it costs more energy than it'll save/create.
Typical home-biking may produce 100W when it's in use. Few bikes are in use more than 3 hours/week. So you'd produce 0.3Kwh/week, or about 5 cent worth. In a year that adds up to $2.50, in 4 years it adds up to $10. Can you add the needed generator, cable, and infrastructure for receiving the power into the grid for $10 ?
The door-stopper is even sillier. A typical door weighs what, 10kg ? It moves how quickly before being stopped, 2m/s ? (about 4mph) That is an energy of 1/2*10*2^2 = 20J then.
You would need to slam the door 50 times a day, every day, for 10 years to create one single Kwh. Worth $0.15
Do the stuff that makes SENSE. Get a energy-efficient car. Change the windows in your house if they're old and poor. Have a well-insulated house. Use modern lightbulbs. Consider solar-water-heating if you live somewhere where it's warm and you shower a lot (these two often go together, for obvious reasons)
People don't even do it when it's a trivially easy task that they perform regularily anyway.
Take modern light-sources as opposed to incandescent ones. A typical bulb migth live for 2000 hours, cost $1, and consume 60W. A modern replacement (that screws directly into the same socket) migth live for 8000 hours, cost $10 and consume 15W.
At current electricity-prices it SHOULD be a complete no-brainer.
$1/2 + 1000 * 0.06 * $0.15 = $9 (for each 1000 hours of light)
$10/8 + 1000 * 0.015 * $0.15 = $3.50 (for each 1000 hours of light)
It's one third the price, basically.
It's also more environmentally friendly (ok, so you DO need to return the used bulbs responsibly), creates less extra heat in the summer, and thus reduces your AC-bill somewhat.
And it literally costs you NO time at all. When the old bulb burns out you need to put in a new one ANYWAY. And putting in a modern one instead of an old-fashioned one is a similar task, one ain't harder than the other.
Nevertheless, hundreds of millions of old-fashioned bulbs burn in USA today. It's sad, really.
Reality of the situation is that the price of LCDs have fallen like a lead-balloon.
Reality of the situation is also that the actual mining of the actually rare minerals that go into a LCD has cost in the single-percentage-range of the finished LCD-screen. (if that) Gallium is aprox $100/kg afterall, and just how much of it do you imagine go into a typical LCD-screen ? 10 grams ? That'd be $1 then...
(highly PURIFIED gallium is more expensive, perhaps $500/kg, but the PURIFICATION is not getting harder just because the mining is getting harder, so that's kinda irrelevant)
In other words, if the price of Gallium triples, this will add a -tiny- amount to the price of the finished LCD. If the price of ALL the basic materials triple, this will STILL add a fairly small amount to the price of the finished LCD, or more likely, make prices fall sligthly slower than they otherwise would.
The raw-material used MOST of in delivering an LCD-screen to you is OIL, it's used for creating much of the energy powering the machines (including the mining-machines!) and it's used for transport, and it's used for creating plastic.
The price of oil has ALREADY tripled in the last 4 years, but this too has put only a relatively minor dent in the falling prices. Because most of what you pay for in a high-tech product is highly-qualified human-work, not minerals or oil.
It's not a question of "today $400 -- tomorrow $1400". It's more a question of "At stable raw-material-prices prices would fall by 50% the next year, however due to rising raw-materia-prices prices fall by only 10%"
Somehow I think people will still buy them. (and if not, that will diminsh the demand which again tends to make prices sink... Economics 101.
That is true offcourse. But it's also true that human activity has this far used something like 0.001% of the gallium available in the top-1km of the earths crust. It's just that we've used a significant fraction of the gallium that was easiest to get. What's left is HARDER to get, which means up until now, it wasn't profitable.
Once the price rises enough, it WILL be profitable though.
Also, while you're rigth that new Gallium ain't created, you could just as well argue that no Gallium is being destroyed -- so we can't run out of it, we have asmuch as we ever had.
Nah. I'm not BillG. Though that'd be helpful seeing the house-prices in the Stavanger area, but I digress...
The fibre is bog-standard. I could be wrong offcourse, and people could start using bandwith more quickly, but I feel pretty confident I'll be proven right; a Tbps or thereabout WILL be sufficient for the next few decades.
Today 10Mbps, 25Mbps and 100Mbps (symetrical, equal up and downlink) is offered on the fibre. Nearly everyone goes for 10Mbps, because there's just not many applications where it's worth paying extra to have a 100Mbps link at home. (I understand that by US standards, even 10Mbps is a lot)
If bandwith-demand grows by 50% a year, then it'll take 25-30 years before the Tbps-capcaity of the fibre becomes a problem. And frankly, I think that progress will slow down before that anyway. For natural reasons, such as once you can stream a couple of full-res HDTV-channels to every inhabitant of the house, perhaps demand for even more bandwith will slow ? Time will tell.
If the TBps -does- prove problematic, we've thougth ahead: We installed the fibre in a... uhm.... "tubes", and we've got drawstrings in the tubes, so we can easily and cheaply put in more fibres or whatever becomes the norm after single-mode-fibre is obsolete.
The scary thing is, I'm sorta joking, a Terabit pro second sounds like a metric shitload to me. Still, it's not a good bet to say "X will be always be enough" even for what seems like large values of X.
If these policies where openly documented, and there where truly free competition, I'd agree with you; let the market sort it out.
That typically isn't the case. First, these policies are rarely documented at all, and if they are, it's in language so vague as to make it useless for purposes of comparing one ISP to another. ("We may, at our discretion, at various times, perform adjustments to packet-priority")
Free competition is also the exception rather than the rule. A huge fraction of end-user-lines where built by telcos acting as a government-granted monopoly, and then they somehow got to keep a large piece of this after the monopolies are no longer in principle monopolies. Which means in many areas they are still in -practice- pretty close to monopolies.
And even where they're not, competition is low and that will remain so. Few people have more than 2, perhaps 3 physical cables coming in that are suitable for broadband. (many have a twisted-pair copper that used to be for POTS and a coax that used to be for analogue-cable, and that's it, extra bonus if the old monopolist owns the tv-cable in your area!)
This ain't gonna change. A single modern cable has moder than enough capacity for all needs, so it's not economically sensible to have a large number of competitive cable-networks.
Really, last-mile networks should be owned and run by the neighbourhoods, or failing that atleast be considered infrastructure, really today a working broadband-connection is basic infrastructure like electric power, water, sewage and roads. (it's not -equally- crucial as those, but it's crucial nevertheless, I doubt a house with -no- telecom-connection of any sort would find many buyers)
Wireless changes the picture a bit, for low-bandwith applications. But only a bit. The problem is that the RF-spectrum is fundamentally shared, thus it will not be possible to deliver the same speeds and reliability as is possible on physical cable. (a single single-mode fibre easily supports speeds up atleast a Tbps or thereabouts which is more than most people need for the next few decades)
Besides, the certificates aren't technically -needed- to prevent eavesdropping. They're only needed to prevent MiM.
It should be possible to set up a certificate-less https-host, in which case you'd get security against passive eavesdropping only, but no guarantees against active MiM attacks.
It'd be a sort-of halfway-solution. But it -is- a real problem today that tiny and small websites don't have any reasonable way to use encryption at all. Self-signed scares people away (and infact gets perceived as MORE dangerous than plain http, due to the warning)
Because what typically happens is the first time you visit such a site you're asked if you want to accept it this time or permanently. You typically click on permanently.
Now, granted, this -first- time you could already be fucked. But assuming you aren't, you'll now have a chance of discovering it in the FUTURE if someone does try to pull a MiM attack on you or similar.
You'll have a chance of noticing this because the browser will ask again if you want to accept the certificate, or even better, the browser could say: "Warning: Certificate has changed" like ssh-clients do.
Also, https protects against passive eavesdropping, even when the lack of a trusted signature means that MiM is still possible. Defending against ONE attack is worthwhile even if OTHER attacks are still possible.
I'm sure you got it, but for the record; the point of the numbers was to show the sequence from most-sifnificant-part to least-significant-part, the most significant part of the adress ".org" is in the -middle- of the URL.
Which is arguably stupid. Email-adresses are much better. Perhaps reverse email-adresses would be even better.
Atleast with email it's 3@2.1 so in a sequence, though the oposite one from the one we -normally- use.
US dates share the same sillyness. day-month-year is fine, as is year-month-day, but whoever decided on putting the least-significant part in the freaking MIDDLE as in month-day-year ?
In practice, it may very well be that the added complexity in millions of routers, nics and thelike of dealing with variable-length adresses (and thus by nessecity variable-length-headers) would cost more than the waste of constantly using adresses that are "too large".
Given that 32bit is obviously too little, the only real choice was 64 or 128 bit, 64 really should be enough, but I guess they wanted to err on the side of caution. 128bit is ridicolously large, but still likely CHEAPER to implement and deal with in real hardware than a variable-length adress that can be anything from 16 bits upwards. (and that would currently mostly be 32-bit)
Sometimes they are. Sure, it's possible to exhaust 128 bits of address-space by gross mismanagement, but then the problem is the mismanagement, not the address-space.
2^128 is 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 that is a very large number. Currently we are 7 billion people on the planet, aproximately, which means there's 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 ip-adresses for every human being on the planet.
If we instead spread them over the planets surface, then there is 226854911280625642308 for every square cm of land-area (aproximately 1/5th that if you also need ips for every square cm of water)
Their argument is ridicolous, so it doesn't much matter what it is. Fact is, unsolicited stuff you receive in the mail is, outside of a very few narrow exceptions, gifts. Fact is, you can't successfully sue someone for doing whatever they want, including selling on Ebay stuff they got as a gift.
I'm not sure why you're messing this togeter with completely unrelated stuff.
Nope. The paperbacks didn't afterall, turn up unsolicited in the mail of the bookstore. (if they did, they WOULD be gifts)
What allows the booksellers to rip and return the cover, destruct the rest of the book and get a refund is a CONTRACT they entered into with the publisher, in this contract they promised to destruct books whose cover they return. Thus if they return covers yet fail to destruct the books they're in violation of contracts, and will be held responsible for any damages arising from that.
Actually, they do. Most people (integrated or not) do neither. But it's very well documented that the less "connected" you are to society, the less chances you perceive you have, the less able your parents are to guide you, the higher is the chance you'll end up in crime.
There's no "consistent downward spiral" in Norway. Number of reported crimes where aprox the same in 1993 and 2008, for example. Rape -is- indeed up, but it's reported more often now than it was eariler, it's hard to say what the real numbers are. Car-theft is down. Burglary is down. Assault and robbery is aproximately constant. Violence is somewhat up (around 10% in that period).
Overall it's a tossup.
Listen, I don't think we disagree so much; it is undoubtedly true that importing people with a very different culture and often a problematic background will cause problems, and it does. It's just that your doomsday-scenarios are quite exxagerated, atleast for Norway.
Sure. A few people not well-integrated in society causes a lot of problems, muggings, prostitution, assault, drug-dealing. This is news ? It would be a fucking miracle if you could take youngsters from a war-zone, transport them to another country where they don't know the language, don't have the education, where their parents aren't integrated into society, where they'll belong to the underclass, and NOT have them commit more crimes than average young people.
There is no reason to assume statistics have worsened since 2001, so I'm not sure what you "imagine" or on what basis.
Not sure actually. Certainly, on that single day, ~3000 dies from terrorist-attack. Many less died from undernourishment in the USA, on that day, obviously.
But in the ~2000 following days a very low count of people died in the USA as the result of terrorist-attacks, whereas undernourishment probably killed a similar count of people on 9/12, 9/13.... up until today. Even if just -1- person a day dies in the USA as a result of undernourishment, the death-count would be similar.
Many old people die earlier than they otherwise would due to undernourishment. These do generally have access to food, but for various reasons do not eat it. (or not enough of it). If you included these, undernourishment-deaths are CERTAINLY an order of magnitude higher (in the usa) than terrorist-deaths. Perhaps that's unfair though, these peoples problem isn't that they don't have -access- to food.
In any case, you're sort of nitpicking a detail. The point is, if you're an American, living in USA, "terrorism" isn't something that even enters the top-20 on your death-risk scale. Infact it's completely down in the noise. Lose 10 pounds(assuming you're overweight) and you've done more for your security than eliminating every terrorist on the planet would do.
Is true offcourse. But it's also true that medium-term higher prices will lead to lower demand/AND/ higher production, there's a sort of equilibrium here.
There are oil-fields that can be profitably produced from at $130/barrel which wouldn't be profitable at $100/barrel. And so on.
But sure, the main idea, that once the easiest-to-get oil is used up, prices WILL rise is sound. The only question is how soon and how dramatic an increase. The current price is already pretty high, even when you include the fact that the dollar is weak.
Nobody knows if the oilprice in 5 years will be aproximately what it is now, or if it'll be $250/barrel. My guess is it'll be more expensive than today, but nor enormously so. Perhaps $150 - $170.
Slashdot Mirror
That's sort of true. The content of the speech, together with the *recipients* of the speech aswell as the *context* all play a part in deciding if a certain statement is legal or illegal.
For example, there are things you're allowed to say or show, but not in public, or not in places accessible to minors, or not to a minor. Some of the same things are however legal if the context is such that you're obviously engaging in satire or humour.
Your main point stands though; saying I can't make a political speech over [communication-channel] is blatantly unconstitutional, if they can forbid one channel, they can forbid all channels, which has pretty much the same effect as forbidding the speech outright.
Its cheaper than that if cheap is your goal. You get 5TB for $6/month from Dreamhost, for example. (and they're not the cheapest ones), this works out to 833GB for each dollar.
5TB is enough to distribute one million 4MB songs, and leave you 1TB left-over for other content, like HTML-pages and whatnot.
I don't think, by the way, that the pirated-things are nessecarily that much more popular than the Linux-distros. But people consume much more of them. While you need only at most one linux-distro every half-year or whatever, you can easily watch 5 movies a WEEK, which means in a year you'll download 250 movies and 2 linux-distros, so 99% movies, assuming they're all the same size.
You're right: digital distribution over the Internet is mindbogglingly cheap. Really really close to "too cheap to meter".
It depends. How much area is "wasted" if I install solar powerpanels on the roof of my house ? How unlikely is it that future solar-panels can even do double-duty and *be* the roof, while simultaneously producing power ?
Well, yeah. But the oposite is also true;
Sometimes you -want- to reduce the pressure in a pipeline carrying water. That is typically the case in mountaineous regions where the water comes from a high lake. For example, where I grew up housing was spread-out from about 600 feet to 0 above sealevel whereas the drinking-water came from a lake at 3000 feet.
This requires pressure-reducers, infact several of them, because 3000 feet worth of pressure is MUCH more than you want to have in your drinking-water-supply. (that's a pressure of 100 bar, or 1400 pounds pro square-inch afterall)
Pressure-reduction is typically done by wasting the energy as heat, done by special valves.
Could (perhaps should) be done by putting a hydroelectric generator in instead.
The energy is substantial. At 1000 meters of fall, every cubic metre of water going trough has 2.5 Kwh excess energy that could be tapped. And even a small town such as the one I grew up in (~4000 people) consume several thousand cubic metres of water a day.
Most people don't even replace their lightbulbs with more energy-efficient ones. And that's a 1-minute job. (zero-extra if you do it the next time the bulb burns out anyway)
Also, you're ignoring the PAYBACK time. It doesn't matter if something is easy to install if buying it costs more than it could ever earn you back. It's a loss. Doubly so if producing it costs more energy than it'll save/create.
Typical home-biking may produce 100W when it's in use. Few bikes are in use more than 3 hours/week. So you'd produce 0.3Kwh/week, or about 5 cent worth. In a year that adds up to $2.50, in 4 years it adds up to $10. Can you add the needed generator, cable, and infrastructure for receiving the power into the grid for $10 ?
The door-stopper is even sillier. A typical door weighs what, 10kg ? It moves how quickly before being stopped, 2m/s ? (about 4mph) That is an energy of 1/2*10*2^2 = 20J then.
You would need to slam the door 50 times a day, every day, for 10 years to create one single Kwh. Worth $0.15
Do the stuff that makes SENSE. Get a energy-efficient car. Change the windows in your house if they're old and poor. Have a well-insulated house. Use modern lightbulbs. Consider solar-water-heating if you live somewhere where it's warm and you shower a lot (these two often go together, for obvious reasons)
Drop the stuff that's just useless gimmicks.
People don't even do it when it's a trivially easy task that they perform regularily anyway.
Take modern light-sources as opposed to incandescent ones. A typical bulb migth live for 2000 hours, cost $1, and consume 60W. A modern replacement (that screws directly into the same socket) migth live for 8000 hours, cost $10 and consume 15W.
At current electricity-prices it SHOULD be a complete no-brainer.
$1/2 + 1000 * 0.06 * $0.15 = $9 (for each 1000 hours of light)
$10/8 + 1000 * 0.015 * $0.15 = $3.50 (for each 1000 hours of light)
It's one third the price, basically.
It's also more environmentally friendly (ok, so you DO need to return the used bulbs responsibly), creates less extra heat in the summer, and thus reduces your AC-bill somewhat.
And it literally costs you NO time at all. When the old bulb burns out you need to put in a new one ANYWAY. And putting in a modern one instead of an old-fashioned one is a similar task, one ain't harder than the other.
Nevertheless, hundreds of millions of old-fashioned bulbs burn in USA today. It's sad, really.
You are being EXTREMELY silly.
Reality of the situation is that the price of LCDs have fallen like a lead-balloon.
Reality of the situation is also that the actual mining of the actually rare minerals that go into a LCD has cost in the single-percentage-range of the finished LCD-screen. (if that) Gallium is aprox $100/kg afterall, and just how much of it do you imagine go into a typical LCD-screen ? 10 grams ? That'd be $1 then...
(highly PURIFIED gallium is more expensive, perhaps $500/kg, but the PURIFICATION is not getting harder just because the mining is getting harder, so that's kinda irrelevant)
In other words, if the price of Gallium triples, this will add a -tiny- amount to the price of the finished LCD. If the price of ALL the basic materials triple, this will STILL add a fairly small amount to the price of the finished LCD, or more likely, make prices fall sligthly slower than they otherwise would.
The raw-material used MOST of in delivering an LCD-screen to you is OIL, it's used for creating much of the energy powering the machines (including the mining-machines!) and it's used for transport, and it's used for creating plastic.
The price of oil has ALREADY tripled in the last 4 years, but this too has put only a relatively minor dent in the falling prices. Because most of what you pay for in a high-tech product is highly-qualified human-work, not minerals or oil.
It's not a question of "today $400 -- tomorrow $1400". It's more a question of "At stable raw-material-prices prices would fall by 50% the next year, however due to rising raw-materia-prices prices fall by only 10%"
Somehow I think people will still buy them. (and if not, that will diminsh the demand which again tends to make prices sink... Economics 101.
That is true offcourse. But it's also true that human activity has this far used something like 0.001% of the gallium available in the top-1km of the earths crust. It's just that we've used a significant fraction of the gallium that was easiest to get. What's left is HARDER to get, which means up until now, it wasn't profitable.
Once the price rises enough, it WILL be profitable though.
Also, while you're rigth that new Gallium ain't created, you could just as well argue that no Gallium is being destroyed -- so we can't run out of it, we have asmuch as we ever had.
Agreed.
It's a total illusion that one can have any kind of free competition on a playing-field where one of the players OWN the fucking field.
It gets worse when the same company owns the last-mile-copper, acts as an ISP --- AND is a content-producer on the Internet.
Nah. I'm not BillG. Though that'd be helpful seeing the house-prices in the Stavanger area, but I digress...
The fibre is bog-standard. I could be wrong offcourse, and people could start using bandwith more quickly, but I feel pretty confident I'll be proven right; a Tbps or thereabout WILL be sufficient for the next few decades.
Today 10Mbps, 25Mbps and 100Mbps (symetrical, equal up and downlink) is offered on the fibre. Nearly everyone goes for 10Mbps, because there's just not many applications where it's worth paying extra to have a 100Mbps link at home. (I understand that by US standards, even 10Mbps is a lot)
If bandwith-demand grows by 50% a year, then it'll take 25-30 years before the Tbps-capcaity of the fibre becomes a problem. And frankly, I think that progress will slow down before that anyway. For natural reasons, such as once you can stream a couple of full-res HDTV-channels to every inhabitant of the house, perhaps demand for even more bandwith will slow ? Time will tell.
If the TBps -does- prove problematic, we've thougth ahead: We installed the fibre in a... uhm.... "tubes", and we've got drawstrings in the tubes, so we can easily and cheaply put in more fibres or whatever becomes the norm after single-mode-fibre is obsolete.
The scary thing is, I'm sorta joking, a Terabit pro second sounds like a metric shitload to me. Still, it's not a good bet to say "X will be always be enough" even for what seems like large values of X.
If these policies where openly documented, and there where truly free competition, I'd agree with you; let the market sort it out.
That typically isn't the case. First, these policies are rarely documented at all, and if they are, it's in language so vague as to make it useless for purposes of comparing one ISP to another. ("We may, at our discretion, at various times, perform adjustments to packet-priority")
Free competition is also the exception rather than the rule. A huge fraction of end-user-lines where built by telcos acting as a government-granted monopoly, and then they somehow got to keep a large piece of this after the monopolies are no longer in principle monopolies. Which means in many areas they are still in -practice- pretty close to monopolies.
And even where they're not, competition is low and that will remain so. Few people have more than 2, perhaps 3 physical cables coming in that are suitable for broadband. (many have a twisted-pair copper that used to be for POTS and a coax that used to be for analogue-cable, and that's it, extra bonus if the old monopolist owns the tv-cable in your area!)
This ain't gonna change. A single modern cable has moder than enough capacity for all needs, so it's not economically sensible to have a large number of competitive cable-networks.
Really, last-mile networks should be owned and run by the neighbourhoods, or failing that atleast be considered infrastructure, really today a working broadband-connection is basic infrastructure like electric power, water, sewage and roads. (it's not -equally- crucial as those, but it's crucial nevertheless, I doubt a house with -no- telecom-connection of any sort would find many buyers)
Wireless changes the picture a bit, for low-bandwith applications. But only a bit. The problem is that the RF-spectrum is fundamentally shared, thus it will not be possible to deliver the same speeds and reliability as is possible on physical cable. (a single single-mode fibre easily supports speeds up atleast a Tbps or thereabouts which is more than most people need for the next few decades)
Besides, the certificates aren't technically -needed- to prevent eavesdropping. They're only needed to prevent MiM.
It should be possible to set up a certificate-less https-host, in which case you'd get security against passive eavesdropping only, but no guarantees against active MiM attacks.
It'd be a sort-of halfway-solution. But it -is- a real problem today that tiny and small websites don't have any reasonable way to use encryption at all. Self-signed scares people away (and infact gets perceived as MORE dangerous than plain http, due to the warning)
More to the point, it's a video-game where you steal cars, murder cops, hit people in the head with baseball-bats and perform drive-by-shootings.
Why anybody, in this context, would be offended by normal, adult, consentual sex is beyond me.
Plus, let's face it, it's $5.
Because what typically happens is the first time you visit such a site you're asked if you want to accept it this time or permanently. You typically click on permanently.
Now, granted, this -first- time you could already be fucked. But assuming you aren't, you'll now have a chance of discovering it in the FUTURE if someone does try to pull a MiM attack on you or similar.
You'll have a chance of noticing this because the browser will ask again if you want to accept the certificate, or even better, the browser could say: "Warning: Certificate has changed" like ssh-clients do.
Also, https protects against passive eavesdropping, even when the lack of a trusted signature means that MiM is still possible. Defending against ONE attack is worthwhile even if OTHER attacks are still possible.
I'm sure you got it, but for the record; the point of the numbers was to show the sequence from most-sifnificant-part to least-significant-part, the most significant part of the adress ".org" is in the -middle- of the URL.
Which is arguably stupid. Email-adresses are much better. Perhaps reverse email-adresses would be even better.
True. Either way, aslong as it's consistent.
The most-significant part could be at either end, aslong as it's consistent.
Except with URLs it's not. The most significant part is in the MIDDLE which is plainly braindead.
http://3.2.1/4/5
That look like a sensible arrangement to anyone ?
Atleast with email it's 3@2.1 so in a sequence, though the oposite one from the one we -normally- use.
US dates share the same sillyness. day-month-year is fine, as is year-month-day, but whoever decided on putting the least-significant part in the freaking MIDDLE as in month-day-year ?
Should be http://org.slashdot/comments.php
In principle you're right, offcourse.
In practice, it may very well be that the added complexity in millions of routers, nics and thelike of dealing with variable-length adresses (and thus by nessecity variable-length-headers) would cost more than the waste of constantly using adresses that are "too large".
Given that 32bit is obviously too little, the only real choice was 64 or 128 bit, 64 really should be enough, but I guess they wanted to err on the side of caution. 128bit is ridicolously large, but still likely CHEAPER to implement and deal with in real hardware than a variable-length adress that can be anything from 16 bits upwards. (and that would currently mostly be 32-bit)
Sometimes they are. Sure, it's possible to exhaust 128 bits of address-space by gross mismanagement, but then the problem is the mismanagement, not the address-space.
2^128 is 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 that is a very large number. Currently we are 7 billion people on the planet, aproximately, which means there's 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 ip-adresses for every human being on the planet.
If we instead spread them over the planets surface, then there is 226854911280625642308 for every square cm of land-area (aproximately 1/5th that if you also need ips for every square cm of water)
How can you breach -copyright- without COPYING (or publically performing etc) ?
Assuming Bob bought the coverless book in good faith he can do with it what he wants, copyright doesn't at all enter into it.
Their argument is ridicolous, so it doesn't much matter what it is. Fact is, unsolicited stuff you receive in the mail is, outside of a very few narrow exceptions, gifts. Fact is, you can't successfully sue someone for doing whatever they want, including selling on Ebay stuff they got as a gift. I'm not sure why you're messing this togeter with completely unrelated stuff.
Nope. The paperbacks didn't afterall, turn up unsolicited in the mail of the bookstore. (if they did, they WOULD be gifts)
What allows the booksellers to rip and return the cover, destruct the rest of the book and get a refund is a CONTRACT they entered into with the publisher, in this contract they promised to destruct books whose cover they return. Thus if they return covers yet fail to destruct the books they're in violation of contracts, and will be held responsible for any damages arising from that.
Actually, they do. Most people (integrated or not) do neither. But it's very well documented that the less "connected" you are to society, the less chances you perceive you have, the less able your parents are to guide you, the higher is the chance you'll end up in crime.
There's no "consistent downward spiral" in Norway. Number of reported crimes where aprox the same in 1993 and 2008, for example. Rape -is- indeed up, but it's reported more often now than it was eariler, it's hard to say what the real numbers are. Car-theft is down. Burglary is down. Assault and robbery is aproximately constant. Violence is somewhat up (around 10% in that period).
Overall it's a tossup.
Listen, I don't think we disagree so much; it is undoubtedly true that importing people with a very different culture and often a problematic background will cause problems, and it does. It's just that your doomsday-scenarios are quite exxagerated, atleast for Norway.
Sure. A few people not well-integrated in society causes a lot of problems, muggings, prostitution, assault, drug-dealing. This is news ? It would be a fucking miracle if you could take youngsters from a war-zone, transport them to another country where they don't know the language, don't have the education, where their parents aren't integrated into society, where they'll belong to the underclass, and NOT have them commit more crimes than average young people.
There is no reason to assume statistics have worsened since 2001, so I'm not sure what you "imagine" or on what basis.
Not sure actually. Certainly, on that single day, ~3000 dies from terrorist-attack. Many less died from undernourishment in the USA, on that day, obviously.
.... up until today. Even if just -1- person a day dies in the USA as a result of undernourishment, the death-count would be similar.
But in the ~2000 following days a very low count of people died in the USA as the result of terrorist-attacks, whereas undernourishment probably killed a similar count of people on 9/12, 9/13
Many old people die earlier than they otherwise would due to undernourishment. These do generally have access to food, but for various reasons do not eat it. (or not enough of it). If you included these, undernourishment-deaths are CERTAINLY an order of magnitude higher (in the usa) than terrorist-deaths. Perhaps that's unfair though, these peoples problem isn't that they don't have -access- to food.
In any case, you're sort of nitpicking a detail. The point is, if you're an American, living in USA, "terrorism" isn't something that even enters the top-20 on your death-risk scale. Infact it's completely down in the noise. Lose 10 pounds(assuming you're overweight) and you've done more for your security than eliminating every terrorist on the planet would do.
Is true offcourse. But it's also true that medium-term higher prices will lead to lower demand /AND/ higher production, there's a sort of equilibrium here.
There are oil-fields that can be profitably produced from at $130/barrel which wouldn't be profitable at $100/barrel. And so on.
But sure, the main idea, that once the easiest-to-get oil is used up, prices WILL rise is sound. The only question is how soon and how dramatic an increase. The current price is already pretty high, even when you include the fact that the dollar is weak.
Nobody knows if the oilprice in 5 years will be aproximately what it is now, or if it'll be $250/barrel. My guess is it'll be more expensive than today, but nor enormously so. Perhaps $150 - $170.