You can try to sue them over it, but all they have to say is you were abusing the service and/or not folowing one of their terms of service.
Yes, but that assumes that you were abusing the system; they'd have to show that.
If you ran your own service well, that's very unlikely to be an issue in fact. They probably wouldn't care that you'd done this (you can do your own traffic shaping for your customers.)
Besides there's usually more than one bandwidth supplier if you really need that- it's the access side that's the problem.
The point of the article isn't that they've calculated with more precision, more that they've worked out a way to plot courses through the solar system, more or less for free.
Basically what happens is that there are certain points near to the earth and every other body in the solar system called the Lagrange points. The researchers have worked out a way of calculating a route that passes through the regions around the Lagrange points to jump from planet to planet with almost no expenditure of fuel.
The only downside to this is that the route is probably going to be slow; several years to go from place to place. Still, the implications of being able to move cargo/fuel to say, Mars ahead of human habitation cannot be overestimated. The other downside is you have to be fairly high above the earth initially to be able to reach the 'superhighways', so don't expect the program to give directions from route 66;-)
All the action takes place into a rotational reference frame, so you have to factor in some subtle forces like the Coriolis Force [uoregon.edu].
Actually not the coriolis force. In the frame rotating about the center of mass you only have to consider gravity and the 'centrifugal force'. If you draw a map of the overall forces you find that there are 5 points in the rotating frame where there are no overall forces acting; these are the lagrange points. It's all amazingly elegant actually.
The coriolis forces are important when you are moving around in this rotating frame however.
You'll need to check the contract very carefully- some contracts won't let you sell part of the service they give you to a third party.
However if you start up a not-for-profit company, which is jointly owned by the people who want to use the service the ISP probably can't do a damn thing about it.
The main problem you can face is leaching. If possible set up VPN software so that they have to log in with different passwords. If you monitor their usage, you should be able to ensure that nobody leaches or shares the bandwidth with their friends.
The point is that the earlier you know that you are off the correct path, the earlier you can correct it, the less fuel you need to spend.
Contrary to what you say, the position of the planets is known to astonishing accuracy- it's only over millions of years that they move significantly chaotically, over a few months their position is entirely known.
A small body bouncing around between them is rather different however- that can be very chaotic.
Plotting a course through the solar system is quite routinely achieved. Remember Voyager?
Uh, wouldn't there be *TWO* such points? Think about it.
Do a web search on Lagrange points, you'll find it. There's 5. One between the earth and moon, one the other side of the moon, one opposite from the moon, one 60 degrees ahead of the moon and one 60 degrees behind.
And the "chaos theory" probably means that they just considered the stability of their trajectories. This is hardly very exciting. The problems of unstable trajectories should be known to any maths undergrad.
No, no. You've missed it a little. Gravity is very nonlinear. It really is a chaotic system, particularly with a space vehicle, bouncing around between say the earth and the moon. With this technique they can search for and find a trajectory around bodies, and because the vehicle has small thrusters and the solar system is very predictable, they can make sure they stick to the chosen trajectory, and they end up using miniscule amounts of fuel.
any "effect" where you use grvity to move with zero fuel is called falling.
no need to give it fancy names.
That's very blase if you don't mind me saying. I mean the scientists are all excited- they seem to have found a way to fall upwards, and you're not impressed?
Yes, you're basically correct in both Europe and the US.
The telcos made decisions on how much bandwidth to install more or less independently from everyone else- they all multiplied up their capacity by perhaps 10x; but they projected that the price per bit wouldn't go down much initially; only problem is everyone else had done the same thing, so the price fell through floor.
However, the rule of thumb is that growth in datatraffic in the middle of the network is doubling every 12 months or
so. So 10x more bandwidth is enough bandwidth for more than 3 years.
And in the meantime the bandwidth requirements if anything slowed down after the dotcom crash. Before the dot com crash some companies were buying 4 OC3 lines when an ADSL line would have done fine.
Right now, bandwidth cost (c.f. price) is cheap and if anything getting cheaper- you can buy the equipment on ebay because companies are selling it off for pennies on the dollar. Right now, telecom equipment manufacturers can't sell much at all. And the overcapacity isn't going away much even though the network companies are going bankrupt left, right and center.
Mind you that's the cost of the bandwidth to the telecoms companies- many telecom providers were unable to make profit during the dotcom boom times, so they are raising prices now to get a chance to turn a profit. So they have pushed their prices up, and they're going to try to keep them there for a while I think.
As the growth curve on the bandwidth carries on going up- I don't think there's anything to stop it, the cost and price per bit will carry on coming down- but it may slow slightly as the bandwidth providers have to buy more kit to provide backbone when the current overcapacity comes to an end.
a) it allows people on the same AP (subnet) to communicate and use your bandwidth up, because they only need IPSec to go through the IPSec portal, not communicate with each other.
b) You have to secure the clients as well
I argue that a) is irrelevant because black hats can easily set up their own network (ad-hoc network if they want- they don't even need an AP for that), and the wireless bandwidth still gets used up, so this has little or nothing to do with security.
b) is true however, each machine needs a firewall.
whats the difference between an encrypted ack packet and a non enc'd one from a sniffing point of view not a one..
any key you could possible be using will get exposed through these very well documented and standardized packets.
short of non-reversable encs like md5 it is basically impossible to protect data if you know the before enc and after enc data on a common packet.
Nope. The best encryption techniques are proof against a 'known plaintext attack'; which is what you are talking about here. The code is not resolvable from the plaintext or the encrypted text or both together. Well, theoretically it is resolvable, but the amount of processing necessary to do it is completely beyond computational reach.
At best you might be able to guess from the context that it was an ack packet, but that's about it.
The US government is proposing spending tax dollars to find holes that Microsoft have left in their operating system because fixing them would have cost Microsoft money?
Propping up that such poor 'down-on-its-luck company'? I think that the government should FINE Microsoft for each standard hole that each customer out there has; not fix the problems for it using public money.
"It's important for people to know whether or not their search results are being bought by big business," said Gary Ruskin, the group's executive director.
the very notion of profit is evil to these people.
Well, Google is the most popular search engine, and they don't rank results by advertisement and that in itself should tell you something. And Google is very profitable indeed.
how is this harming consumers?
Tons of ways:
- its a form of lying (the best MATCH is supposed to be at the top, not the most expensive advertisement)
- it loses the best match in a forest of advertisements, reducing the usefullness of the engine
- its to do with fitness for purpose; a search engine should search, not advertise
- its to do with not pissing off your users
- its to do with making bigger profits from having more users
- its to do with not going broke (Google has been very profitable since August 2001, hence they're more likely to stick around)
- it's to do with cluttering the screen, poor readability, adding advertising lies and bullshit
Don't get me wrong, profit is essential. But so is water. Drinking water is good, drinking more water is often better. Drinking too much water will kill you and stop you drinking ever again.
Past some point, too much pursuit of shortterm profit will reduce your longterm total profit. You reach a local maxima, and you get stuck. The people behind Google were able to see past the 'raising the link for money idea' and see where the real money can be made. It's nothing to do with liberalism at all.
Actually they've been in profit since August 2001, over $50 million.
Their google appliance was their big idea- the google search engine is a loss leader for this, and they make 50% of their profit this way. The other 50% is from advertising.
Damn. You've forced me to inject facts into a perfectly good flamewar. Here [worldbank.org] is a table that seems to indicate that, adjusted for purchasing power, the U.S. comes in third behind Luxembourg and Liechtenstein in gross national income.
You see? There's plenty more to life than buying power though. Many of these countries have free medical benefits. Also some other countries have extra bonuses, Sweden has swedish women(!); and if the reports are true about iceland (all of the women look like Sharon Stone), then I'd quite like to live there, even with less spending power; heck that's my next holiday right there!;-)
Which one of those do you live in?
It's not the country, it's the personal circumstances isn't it?
Also i don't think this is intended for astronauts or cosmonauts but is intended for robotic probes, etc. which require an unmanned and at least 5 of 9's landing success rate.
I'm sure that that rate has never, ever been achieve for any reentry vehicle by any country. The landing of the Space Shuttle is one of the most dangerous parts of the mission. Even if it were a 5 9s procedure, we wouldn't know until we had done 100,000 landings.
Get a clue dude. It was only a few months ago that the American hypersonic scramjet test did pretty much the same thing. Is America compensating for... something?;-) Not!
Why is it that every single post on some good idea that does not come from the USA ends up on/. getting trolled and flamebaited to all hell?
It's largely because 'America is the best country in the world'. And Americans know this because their government told them so and the gullible fools actually believe it(!) IMO space is not something that America excels at, although they mostly cover it up by spending obscene amounts of money. I mean, any dog can be made to fly if you throw enough money at it- check out the Space Shuttle! It's a reusable space vehicle that was designed to cost less than an expendable vehicle- but it turns out, it didn't, by a long, long, long way; but they continue to run it! OTOH the Russians built a similar vehicle, launched once, then immediately ditched it, because they found it cost too much. Fair enough, you might argue they should have figured that out before they built it, but you only really know that when you've done it. NASA seems to have entirely missed this point.
One would think, or at least hope, that the kind of people who frequent/. would be a little bit more open minded than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but that assumes that you were abusing the system; they'd have to show that.
If you ran your own service well, that's very unlikely to be an issue in fact. They probably wouldn't care that you'd done this (you can do your own traffic shaping for your customers.)
Besides there's usually more than one bandwidth supplier if you really need that- it's the access side that's the problem.
Basically what happens is that there are certain points near to the earth and every other body in the solar system called the Lagrange points. The researchers have worked out a way of calculating a route that passes through the regions around the Lagrange points to jump from planet to planet with almost no expenditure of fuel.
The only downside to this is that the route is probably going to be slow; several years to go from place to place. Still, the implications of being able to move cargo/fuel to say, Mars ahead of human habitation cannot be overestimated. The other downside is you have to be fairly high above the earth initially to be able to reach the 'superhighways', so don't expect the program to give directions from route 66 ;-)
Actually not the coriolis force. In the frame rotating about the center of mass you only have to consider gravity and the 'centrifugal force'. If you draw a map of the overall forces you find that there are 5 points in the rotating frame where there are no overall forces acting; these are the lagrange points. It's all amazingly elegant actually.
The coriolis forces are important when you are moving around in this rotating frame however.
However if you start up a not-for-profit company, which is jointly owned by the people who want to use the service the ISP probably can't do a damn thing about it.
The main problem you can face is leaching. If possible set up VPN software so that they have to log in with different passwords. If you monitor their usage, you should be able to ensure that nobody leaches or shares the bandwidth with their friends.
Contrary to what you say, the position of the planets is known to astonishing accuracy- it's only over millions of years that they move significantly chaotically, over a few months their position is entirely known.
A small body bouncing around between them is rather different however- that can be very chaotic.
Plotting a course through the solar system is quite routinely achieved. Remember Voyager?
Uh, wouldn't there be *TWO* such points? Think about it.
Do a web search on Lagrange points, you'll find it. There's 5. One between the earth and moon, one the other side of the moon, one opposite from the moon, one 60 degrees ahead of the moon and one 60 degrees behind.
No, no. You've missed it a little. Gravity is very nonlinear. It really is a chaotic system, particularly with a space vehicle, bouncing around between say the earth and the moon. With this technique they can search for and find a trajectory around bodies, and because the vehicle has small thrusters and the solar system is very predictable, they can make sure they stick to the chosen trajectory, and they end up using miniscule amounts of fuel.
no need to give it fancy names.
That's very blase if you don't mind me saying. I mean the scientists are all excited- they seem to have found a way to fall upwards, and you're not impressed?
Talk about a tough crowd!
Check out Karl Sundham's 1913 series solution.
The telcos made decisions on how much bandwidth to install more or less independently from everyone else- they all multiplied up their capacity by perhaps 10x; but they projected that the price per bit wouldn't go down much initially; only problem is everyone else had done the same thing, so the price fell through floor.
However, the rule of thumb is that growth in datatraffic in the middle of the network is doubling every 12 months or so. So 10x more bandwidth is enough bandwidth for more than 3 years.
And in the meantime the bandwidth requirements if anything slowed down after the dotcom crash. Before the dot com crash some companies were buying 4 OC3 lines when an ADSL line would have done fine.
Right now, bandwidth cost (c.f. price) is cheap and if anything getting cheaper- you can buy the equipment on ebay because companies are selling it off for pennies on the dollar. Right now, telecom equipment manufacturers can't sell much at all. And the overcapacity isn't going away much even though the network companies are going bankrupt left, right and center.
Mind you that's the cost of the bandwidth to the telecoms companies- many telecom providers were unable to make profit during the dotcom boom times, so they are raising prices now to get a chance to turn a profit. So they have pushed their prices up, and they're going to try to keep them there for a while I think.
As the growth curve on the bandwidth carries on going up- I don't think there's anything to stop it, the cost and price per bit will carry on coming down- but it may slow slightly as the bandwidth providers have to buy more kit to provide backbone when the current overcapacity comes to an end.
a) it allows people on the same AP (subnet) to communicate and use your bandwidth up, because they only need IPSec to go through the IPSec portal, not communicate with each other.
b) You have to secure the clients as well
I argue that a) is irrelevant because black hats can easily set up their own network (ad-hoc network if they want- they don't even need an AP for that), and the wireless bandwidth still gets used up, so this has little or nothing to do with security.
b) is true however, each machine needs a firewall.
any key you could possible be using will get exposed through these very well documented and standardized packets.
short of non-reversable encs like md5 it is basically impossible to protect data if you know the before enc and after enc data on a common packet.
Nope. The best encryption techniques are proof against a 'known plaintext attack'; which is what you are talking about here. The code is not resolvable from the plaintext or the encrypted text or both together. Well, theoretically it is resolvable, but the amount of processing necessary to do it is completely beyond computational reach.
At best you might be able to guess from the context that it was an ack packet, but that's about it.
closeBackdoor();
before the closing brace!
No they didn't ;-)
Propping up that such poor 'down-on-its-luck company'? I think that the government should FINE Microsoft for each standard hole that each customer out there has; not fix the problems for it using public money.
Good. So you're not worried about that line 3029 that says:
if (slashdotId == "Wolfier")
{
openBackdoor();
sendHisDodgyWebAccessesURLsToUncleSam();
triggerIRSAudit();
}
the very notion of profit is evil to these people.
Well, Google is the most popular search engine, and they don't rank results by advertisement and that in itself should tell you something. And Google is very profitable indeed.
how is this harming consumers?
Tons of ways:
- its a form of lying (the best MATCH is supposed to be at the top, not the most expensive advertisement)
- it loses the best match in a forest of advertisements, reducing the usefullness of the engine
- its to do with fitness for purpose; a search engine should search, not advertise
- its to do with not pissing off your users
- its to do with making bigger profits from having more users - its to do with not going broke (Google has been very profitable since August 2001, hence they're more likely to stick around)
- it's to do with cluttering the screen, poor readability, adding advertising lies and bullshit
Don't get me wrong, profit is essential. But so is water. Drinking water is good, drinking more water is often better. Drinking too much water will kill you and stop you drinking ever again.
Past some point, too much pursuit of shortterm profit will reduce your longterm total profit. You reach a local maxima, and you get stuck. The people behind Google were able to see past the 'raising the link for money idea' and see where the real money can be made. It's nothing to do with liberalism at all.
Their google appliance was their big idea- the google search engine is a loss leader for this, and they make 50% of their profit this way. The other 50% is from advertising.
You see? There's plenty more to life than buying power though. Many of these countries have free medical benefits. Also some other countries have extra bonuses, Sweden has swedish women(!); and if the reports are true about iceland (all of the women look like Sharon Stone), then I'd quite like to live there, even with less spending power; heck that's my next holiday right there! ;-)
Which one of those do you live in?
It's not the country, it's the personal circumstances isn't it?
However, apart from the story there is no corroborating evidence to back it up. Right?
4) Everyone in Slashdot knows the story and knows that it is an urban legend (U) for untrue.
Actually, arguably that was the predecessor, and it was actually faster.
I'm sure that that rate has never, ever been achieve for any reentry vehicle by any country. The landing of the Space Shuttle is one of the most dangerous parts of the mission. Even if it were a 5 9s procedure, we wouldn't know until we had done 100,000 landings.
Oh yeah, and funny how it's the other countries with the higher standard of living and per capita income! I think that's not a coincidence either!
We like to think that being rich mother-fuckers is not pure blind luck.
No you've practiced that a lot I'd expect. Still, as long as you like to think that, it'll be ok.
Are you a racist or do you just play one on /. ?
It's largely because 'America is the best country in the world'. And Americans know this because their government told them so and the gullible fools actually believe it(!) IMO space is not something that America excels at, although they mostly cover it up by spending obscene amounts of money. I mean, any dog can be made to fly if you throw enough money at it- check out the Space Shuttle! It's a reusable space vehicle that was designed to cost less than an expendable vehicle- but it turns out, it didn't, by a long, long, long way; but they continue to run it! OTOH the Russians built a similar vehicle, launched once, then immediately ditched it, because they found it cost too much. Fair enough, you might argue they should have figured that out before they built it, but you only really know that when you've done it. NASA seems to have entirely missed this point.
One would think, or at least hope, that the kind of people who frequent /. would be a little bit more open minded than that.
Yes. But I see little evidence.
Or the fact that ~70% of the ISS is of Russian construction and design?