They shouldn't even consider Good Samaritan laws or unlawful access to a computer system.
The company seems to have offered all of it's users access to other user's information. The guy didn't hack through any security, the company gave him access indirectly.
It's like he received a retirement package for another person but had his name on the label, or a bank using the same key for every security deposit box and you just on whim tried your key in someone else' box.
You didn't know you would be exposed, you did something out of curiosity that seemed obvious and wouldn't amount to anything.
So, it seems the onus is on the company, not the user, even though the company seems to think it has the right to bully the guy to keep their snafu hidden from it's other customers.
They should have sold the frequencies by market area (city, zip-codes, etc.) and not nation-wide.
That's the real crux of the problem.
Now we have large nation-wide companies holding up frequencies in large swathes of the country because they're dedicating their efforts in specific markets where they can charge more.
Had the FCC sold the frequency on a market basis and required it to be used within a reasonable time frame, we wouldn't have these issues.
Most of the loading time savings comes from them hosting a proxy that's down-sampling images for you. They did the same thing with the other Kindles, except the proxy turned all of the images to black and white (which would be a really cool feature to turn on even on a normal computer, IMHO).
You could probably setup the same system for yourself pretty easily with open source software. Grab a Linux Amazon Web Image, install Squid and set it up resize images larger than a certain size.
Add on the fact the gold itself could be elevating the boiling point of the water when both are already highly pressurized and you'll discover why marble is such a pretty rock!
To summarize, you'd setup the equivalent of trusted peers in your DNS for your SSL certificates. Those peers would store a copy of every certificate you generate (for free because they're your own servers or a friendly trusted source, or a paid service from one of the big guys) and your end user can double check the certificate from them as well.
Using the Secure DNS, the user's computer will typically have 2 DNS servers to reference independant and if the certificate authority information isn't the same across the DNS servers, the peers are different on each set of DNS records or if the peer doesn't recognize the certificate (or that they're peered), then the certificate cannot be trusted.
Decentralizing on SDNS is the answer. Traditional certificate authorities can still exist on the new system as trusted peers using a paid service, presumably hosting cached information like a CDN to speed up the verification.
I think the issue is that NetApp would have egg on it's face if it came out with a product that cost 1/40th what they just sold you and took 1/100th the space.
So, they need to price the new product high to not diminish the value of what they've already sold in the recent past.
Stupid, I know. It's an MBA practice that doesn't make a whole lot of sense with IT products since things change so quickly.
To avoid the practice would take a lot of work, though. Which would cut into their huge profit margins and provide the need to hire more engineers than MBAs.
Makes it almost impossible to remain anonymous by proxy or Tor if you use the service, or if DNS servers start to enforce the behavior Google is suggesting in their IETF brief.
Seems like when you do a DNS lookup, your octets get sent by yourself or the proxy, and then Google and friends see's a request for that domain in Analytics or what not from the proxy. Not going to take much to attach one piece of information to the other, or pull together patterns from Analytics from the DNS responses for the proxy to guess which requests are to particular guestimated individuals. Add on Adsense and you're even more screwed.
Anyway, I'm dropping OpenDNS at home because of this. I don't agree that it's necessary and can be more harmful than helpful. I'm not worried about a download completing faster so much as someone having a dossier on me hidden away on some server.
OpenDNS was nice to use as a layer of avoiding malware but it's usefulness disappears when it starts doing stuff I don't appreciate.
Google's search algorithm (backrub) lets the users give them their search results. So, each time a person goes a search for X and finds a worthwhile link on page 2, the next person who searches for X will more likely find that same link on page 1. This is because Google has the redirect tracking the user when they click on a link and relating the clicked link to the search phrase.
In essence, Google uses the searchers to sort the searches for them. The more people who use their service, the more sorting gets done and the more closely the searchers match what's necessary because other searchers did the work for you.
Bing on the other hand is at a big disadvantage because Google is the defacto search monopoly. Bing probably doesn't have enough people of each type of searcher to contend with Google, so Bing needs to use plugins that keep track of where the user goes when searching on Google to make up the difference and keep up. It's not really that they're stealing data, just copying it because Google still gets it's copy too.
If search systems continue to be run like Google's, a global search service will always be a natural monopoly because the moment a user-base for one service grows to a critical size with any genre of searcher, no other search service will be able to compete by the sheer numbers without finding a way to share the sorting.
In my opinion, because it will be a natural monopoly, these services should be open source and any use of the gathered data made transparent to the users to combat people abusing the system or de-anonymizing data. Or at least heavily regulated.
Agreed, obesity is the most efficient form of carbon sequestering at our disposal.
Hopefully, after thorough culinary study and dietary discipline, we as a society will become so obese that the carbon footprint curve will begin to decline from the lack of travel (too fat to move), reduced heating/cooling costs (too fat for the air around us to change our internal temperature), and electricity needs (who needs a TV or lights, when you can barely remain conscience?).
It will be the golden age of environmentalism! Who could have thought our stomachs would provide the solution to a world-wide problem?
A certification authority should be assigned inside of a domain's DNS to a particular IP or range of IPs for redundancy. Those certification servers can either be internally controlled by the owner of the domain or handled by a trusted third party like the current CA providers.
When a client validates a certificate, it would double check the certificate received came from a trusted source listed on the DNS cache on the local computer and then remotely on a trusted source provided by the client maker, a set of standard trusts (like the current major certificate authorities) or custom sources setup by the client's user (for private local domains and such).
The client can then check the certificate against one of the other certification servers listed on the DNS (can require two IPs like most name servers) for validation. If the certificate isn't listed with any of the CA peers, the CA peers don't recognize the certificate's CA or if the DNS information between the two checks are different, the certificate would be considered invalid.
I think you don't know what you're talking about much less being confused. Emissivity defines reflectivity, as in an objects emissivity rate is it's effective reflection rate for a particular wavelength at a particular temperature, etc. etc.
Also, the solar spectrum is not most intense at the visible part. To quote Wikipedia, who has a source.
"Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.[2]"
The numbers Mr. Sokol is repeating are for micrometers, per the site he references. Note the name of the site. Only one page of the measurements has the micro symbol, probably because the author didn't save the first two pages properly from Excel or what not.
And his point stands. Painting a visible white is only taking care of a small portion of the heat creating wavelengths.
Furthermore, and conveniently ignored, is the fact that above a certain latitude more energy is expended heating in the winter than cooling in the summer. New York City and Chicago are above that latitude, which is around 38-42 degrees on the East Coast depending on the year's average solar irradiance but varies widely across the country (because of airflow and humidity).
Or the fact that air conditioning was never a major concern for energy conservation, since the vast majority of energy used in buildings are to heat it, not cool it.
I think the benefits of the system are being curtailed by the fact it's being applied by longitude instead of latitude.
As most know, the differences in sun rise and sun set align along the latitude (local solar time), yet the daylight savings adjustments are currently aligned against the averaged time zones by longitude. This was the easiest way to do it and it seems to be holding back the system (based off studies).
If instead they setup latitude DST to run perpendicular to the date lines, we'd definitely see the efficiencies gained. But this would mean countries like the USA would have 2-3 DST areas (northern one from New England west to Washington state, southern one from Georgia/Florida to Southern California, and a middle one from North Carolina-Maryland over to Northern California), applied on top of the normal time zones.
Could get confusing when two people who were in the same time zone now have to deal with an hour difference as well, but would be an hour closer to someone in a time zone behind them.
It's really the only way DST would work but adoption would be difficult. Maybe less so nowadays that computers and phones can do the adjustments for you, but to explain to the broader public why the system had to become more complicated would probably be a disaster in itself.
I think the benefits of the system are being curtailed by the fact it's being applied by longitude instead of latitude.
As most know, the differences in sun rise and sun set align along the latitude (local solar time), yet the daylight savings adjustments are currently aligned against the averaged time zones by longitude. This was the easiest way to do it and it seems to be holding back the system (based off the studies).
If instead they setup latitude DST to run perpendicular to the date lines, we'd definitely see the efficiencies gained. But this would mean countries like the USA would have 2-3 DST areas (north one from New England west to Washington state, south one from Georgia/Florida to Southern California, and a middle one from North Carolina-Maryland over to Northern California), applied on top of the normal time zones.
Could get confusing when two people who were in the same time zone now have to deal with an hour difference as well, but would be an hour closer to someone in a time zone behind them.
It's really the only way DST would work but adoption would be difficult. Maybe less so nowadays that computers and phones can do the adjustments for you, but to explain to the broader public why the system had to become more complicated would probably be a disaster in itself.
I think the combination of bad game mechanics and bugs can cause some games to just be too frustrating to play for some. But this coupled with the new trend in DLCs, I think most people probably feel the game was never really completed or they aren't getting their money's worth.
Mass Effect 2 for instance made me incredibly frustrated by the cover system employed (that I could avoid in ME1 using crouch), constantly getting stuck on things when trying to sprint around, and then crashed on me several times. Had I not been enjoying the story so much or been so enamored by the franchise because of the first game, I probably wouldn't have finished the game. In fact, each time I buy one of the DLCs Bioware produces I find myself getting re-frustrated by the same things after months had passed and I had forgotten about them.
Fallout 3 was also known for quite a lot of bugs, so much so that I have several friends that just stopped playing out of frustration as well. I had fond enough memories of the game that I decided to buy the DLCs and found myself getting annoyed at the same bugs and frustrating crashes all over again.
Because of these experiences, I have absolutely no plans on buying the new Fallout:Las Vegas after videos were reported of the same bugs and crashes. And depending on how they change the game-play in Mass Effect 3, I might be skipping that one as well until the "ultimate" edition with all the DLCs are on sale for less than $10.
I'm just not willing to buy a game for full price when I know it's going to make me just as frustrated at times than entertained. Not only because it feels like a waste of money that's really only getting myself annoyed, but also because these same companies are trying to subvert the game market with the DLCs. Most of the games packages that include the DLCs (like the "ultimate" edition I mentioned) also include DRM that won't let you sell it used. This drops the value of the game to me if I can't share it with a friend when I'm done or sell it if I hate it.
The more they devalue their own products by making bad decisions not only inside the game but also in business practices, the less likely they'll be successful with sales since it would be more likely drive someone will avoid buying it (either to avoid the product entirely or pirate it). While I've never pirated a game, the current trend has led me to investigate video game rentals in lieu of buying using services like OnLive or Gamefly.
Which from what I've heard, has already been eating away at game developer revenues. But as I'm trying to stress, they're doing it to themselves.
What I think is horrible is the idea that someone who probably knew the material fairly well heard all the people talking about answers around them with your varied tests and the honest people doubted themselves enough to choose the shared answer instead.
So, had people NOT been cheating, those people might have passed.
Seems to me that if you're going to use your method of test, you should give the test takers the option of a moderated room or not so that honest people can avoid the buzz in the background, while the cheaters will most likely opt for the non-moderated room.
In Cloud scenarios, a distributed relational database is cumbersome or even impossible to maintain. Hence why lots of web companies have moved over to NoSQL solutions tailored to their processes.
So, you're describing centralized, local databases whereas the OP is focusing on decentralized, cloud databases.
Slashdot Mirror
The failed launch is a lie! No monkeys were killed!
All lies concocted by the space monkeys to support space!
Space should not exist and we call on all nations to join us in shaking our fists at it!
Finished in 40 rounds.
The game seems to be hinting that Guam might not be necessary?
They shouldn't even consider Good Samaritan laws or unlawful access to a computer system.
The company seems to have offered all of it's users access to other user's information. The guy didn't hack through any security, the company gave him access indirectly.
It's like he received a retirement package for another person but had his name on the label, or a bank using the same key for every security deposit box and you just on whim tried your key in someone else' box.
You didn't know you would be exposed, you did something out of curiosity that seemed obvious and wouldn't amount to anything.
So, it seems the onus is on the company, not the user, even though the company seems to think it has the right to bully the guy to keep their snafu hidden from it's other customers.
Or at least a renegade interrupt for a bun squeeze when you're both hiding behind the same cover?
They should have sold the frequencies by market area (city, zip-codes, etc.) and not nation-wide.
That's the real crux of the problem.
Now we have large nation-wide companies holding up frequencies in large swathes of the country because they're dedicating their efforts in specific markets where they can charge more.
Had the FCC sold the frequency on a market basis and required it to be used within a reasonable time frame, we wouldn't have these issues.
Most of the loading time savings comes from them hosting a proxy that's down-sampling images for you. They did the same thing with the other Kindles, except the proxy turned all of the images to black and white (which would be a really cool feature to turn on even on a normal computer, IMHO).
You could probably setup the same system for yourself pretty easily with open source software. Grab a Linux Amazon Web Image, install Squid and set it up resize images larger than a certain size.
...to explain the eye rolling when people read the bill for the MRI.
You could also buy a cheap uninterruptable power supply (battery) or line filter (capacitors) for the same effect.
Unlikely the battery or filter would draw 1 for 1 from the wall and would probably smooth the signal out enough to be indistinguishable.
Just means that single point of authority (at the registrar) needs to become stronger. If someone breaks into that, you're screwed no matter what.
So, choosing between making something that should be more secure and something that could be more secure, I'd choose the former.
Add on the fact the gold itself could be elevating the boiling point of the water when both are already highly pressurized and you'll discover why marble is such a pretty rock!
Following up from an earlier post I made here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2367988&cid=37009792
To summarize, you'd setup the equivalent of trusted peers in your DNS for your SSL certificates. Those peers would store a copy of every certificate you generate (for free because they're your own servers or a friendly trusted source, or a paid service from one of the big guys) and your end user can double check the certificate from them as well.
Using the Secure DNS, the user's computer will typically have 2 DNS servers to reference independant and if the certificate authority information isn't the same across the DNS servers, the peers are different on each set of DNS records or if the peer doesn't recognize the certificate (or that they're peered), then the certificate cannot be trusted.
Decentralizing on SDNS is the answer. Traditional certificate authorities can still exist on the new system as trusted peers using a paid service, presumably hosting cached information like a CDN to speed up the verification.
I think the issue is that NetApp would have egg on it's face if it came out with a product that cost 1/40th what they just sold you and took 1/100th the space.
So, they need to price the new product high to not diminish the value of what they've already sold in the recent past.
Stupid, I know. It's an MBA practice that doesn't make a whole lot of sense with IT products since things change so quickly.
To avoid the practice would take a lot of work, though. Which would cut into their huge profit margins and provide the need to hire more engineers than MBAs.
You know that just won't happen.
Makes it almost impossible to remain anonymous by proxy or Tor if you use the service, or if DNS servers start to enforce the behavior Google is suggesting in their IETF brief.
Seems like when you do a DNS lookup, your octets get sent by yourself or the proxy, and then Google and friends see's a request for that domain in Analytics or what not from the proxy. Not going to take much to attach one piece of information to the other, or pull together patterns from Analytics from the DNS responses for the proxy to guess which requests are to particular guestimated individuals. Add on Adsense and you're even more screwed.
Anyway, I'm dropping OpenDNS at home because of this. I don't agree that it's necessary and can be more harmful than helpful. I'm not worried about a download completing faster so much as someone having a dossier on me hidden away on some server.
OpenDNS was nice to use as a layer of avoiding malware but it's usefulness disappears when it starts doing stuff I don't appreciate.
Jobs: Open the fanboy doors, Hal.
It looks like they do offer the code for the product?
http://ebook.hamstersoft.com/en/support
Link to a ZIP file at the bottom of the page above.
So, is this a non-issue or did the company throw the code up quickly to avoid the DMCA?
This is pretty much the issue.
Google's search algorithm (backrub) lets the users give them their search results. So, each time a person goes a search for X and finds a worthwhile link on page 2, the next person who searches for X will more likely find that same link on page 1. This is because Google has the redirect tracking the user when they click on a link and relating the clicked link to the search phrase.
In essence, Google uses the searchers to sort the searches for them. The more people who use their service, the more sorting gets done and the more closely the searchers match what's necessary because other searchers did the work for you.
Bing on the other hand is at a big disadvantage because Google is the defacto search monopoly. Bing probably doesn't have enough people of each type of searcher to contend with Google, so Bing needs to use plugins that keep track of where the user goes when searching on Google to make up the difference and keep up. It's not really that they're stealing data, just copying it because Google still gets it's copy too.
If search systems continue to be run like Google's, a global search service will always be a natural monopoly because the moment a user-base for one service grows to a critical size with any genre of searcher, no other search service will be able to compete by the sheer numbers without finding a way to share the sorting.
In my opinion, because it will be a natural monopoly, these services should be open source and any use of the gathered data made transparent to the users to combat people abusing the system or de-anonymizing data. Or at least heavily regulated.
Agreed, obesity is the most efficient form of carbon sequestering at our disposal.
Hopefully, after thorough culinary study and dietary discipline, we as a society will become so obese that the carbon footprint curve will begin to decline from the lack of travel (too fat to move), reduced heating/cooling costs (too fat for the air around us to change our internal temperature), and electricity needs (who needs a TV or lights, when you can barely remain conscience?).
It will be the golden age of environmentalism! Who could have thought our stomachs would provide the solution to a world-wide problem?
A certification authority should be assigned inside of a domain's DNS to a particular IP or range of IPs for redundancy. Those certification servers can either be internally controlled by the owner of the domain or handled by a trusted third party like the current CA providers.
When a client validates a certificate, it would double check the certificate received came from a trusted source listed on the DNS cache on the local computer and then remotely on a trusted source provided by the client maker, a set of standard trusts (like the current major certificate authorities) or custom sources setup by the client's user (for private local domains and such).
The client can then check the certificate against one of the other certification servers listed on the DNS (can require two IPs like most name servers) for validation. If the certificate isn't listed with any of the CA peers, the CA peers don't recognize the certificate's CA or if the DNS information between the two checks are different, the certificate would be considered invalid.
I think you don't know what you're talking about much less being confused. Emissivity defines reflectivity, as in an objects emissivity rate is it's effective reflection rate for a particular wavelength at a particular temperature, etc. etc.
Also, the solar spectrum is not most intense at the visible part. To quote Wikipedia, who has a source.
"Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
The numbers Mr. Sokol is repeating are for micrometers, per the site he references. Note the name of the site. Only one page of the measurements has the micro symbol, probably because the author didn't save the first two pages properly from Excel or what not.
And his point stands. Painting a visible white is only taking care of a small portion of the heat creating wavelengths.
Furthermore, and conveniently ignored, is the fact that above a certain latitude more energy is expended heating in the winter than cooling in the summer. New York City and Chicago are above that latitude, which is around 38-42 degrees on the East Coast depending on the year's average solar irradiance but varies widely across the country (because of airflow and humidity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation
Or the fact that air conditioning was never a major concern for energy conservation, since the vast majority of energy used in buildings are to heat it, not cool it.
http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=us_energy_homes-basics
I think the benefits of the system are being curtailed by the fact it's being applied by longitude instead of latitude.
As most know, the differences in sun rise and sun set align along the latitude (local solar time), yet the daylight savings adjustments are currently aligned against the averaged time zones by longitude. This was the easiest way to do it and it seems to be holding back the system (based off studies).
If instead they setup latitude DST to run perpendicular to the date lines, we'd definitely see the efficiencies gained. But this would mean countries like the USA would have 2-3 DST areas (northern one from New England west to Washington state, southern one from Georgia/Florida to Southern California, and a middle one from North Carolina-Maryland over to Northern California), applied on top of the normal time zones.
Could get confusing when two people who were in the same time zone now have to deal with an hour difference as well, but would be an hour closer to someone in a time zone behind them.
It's really the only way DST would work but adoption would be difficult. Maybe less so nowadays that computers and phones can do the adjustments for you, but to explain to the broader public why the system had to become more complicated would probably be a disaster in itself.
(copy pasta from a previous comment on DST)
I think the benefits of the system are being curtailed by the fact it's being applied by longitude instead of latitude.
As most know, the differences in sun rise and sun set align along the latitude (local solar time), yet the daylight savings adjustments are currently aligned against the averaged time zones by longitude. This was the easiest way to do it and it seems to be holding back the system (based off the studies).
If instead they setup latitude DST to run perpendicular to the date lines, we'd definitely see the efficiencies gained. But this would mean countries like the USA would have 2-3 DST areas (north one from New England west to Washington state, south one from Georgia/Florida to Southern California, and a middle one from North Carolina-Maryland over to Northern California), applied on top of the normal time zones.
Could get confusing when two people who were in the same time zone now have to deal with an hour difference as well, but would be an hour closer to someone in a time zone behind them.
It's really the only way DST would work but adoption would be difficult. Maybe less so nowadays that computers and phones can do the adjustments for you, but to explain to the broader public why the system had to become more complicated would probably be a disaster in itself.
Where does "idiots with good intentions possibly causing harm" fall in to the Good or Bad scale?
I think the combination of bad game mechanics and bugs can cause some games to just be too frustrating to play for some. But this coupled with the new trend in DLCs, I think most people probably feel the game was never really completed or they aren't getting their money's worth.
Mass Effect 2 for instance made me incredibly frustrated by the cover system employed (that I could avoid in ME1 using crouch), constantly getting stuck on things when trying to sprint around, and then crashed on me several times. Had I not been enjoying the story so much or been so enamored by the franchise because of the first game, I probably wouldn't have finished the game. In fact, each time I buy one of the DLCs Bioware produces I find myself getting re-frustrated by the same things after months had passed and I had forgotten about them.
Fallout 3 was also known for quite a lot of bugs, so much so that I have several friends that just stopped playing out of frustration as well. I had fond enough memories of the game that I decided to buy the DLCs and found myself getting annoyed at the same bugs and frustrating crashes all over again.
Because of these experiences, I have absolutely no plans on buying the new Fallout:Las Vegas after videos were reported of the same bugs and crashes. And depending on how they change the game-play in Mass Effect 3, I might be skipping that one as well until the "ultimate" edition with all the DLCs are on sale for less than $10.
I'm just not willing to buy a game for full price when I know it's going to make me just as frustrated at times than entertained. Not only because it feels like a waste of money that's really only getting myself annoyed, but also because these same companies are trying to subvert the game market with the DLCs. Most of the games packages that include the DLCs (like the "ultimate" edition I mentioned) also include DRM that won't let you sell it used. This drops the value of the game to me if I can't share it with a friend when I'm done or sell it if I hate it.
The more they devalue their own products by making bad decisions not only inside the game but also in business practices, the less likely they'll be successful with sales since it would be more likely drive someone will avoid buying it (either to avoid the product entirely or pirate it). While I've never pirated a game, the current trend has led me to investigate video game rentals in lieu of buying using services like OnLive or Gamefly.
Which from what I've heard, has already been eating away at game developer revenues. But as I'm trying to stress, they're doing it to themselves.
What I think is horrible is the idea that someone who probably knew the material fairly well heard all the people talking about answers around them with your varied tests and the honest people doubted themselves enough to choose the shared answer instead.
So, had people NOT been cheating, those people might have passed.
Seems to me that if you're going to use your method of test, you should give the test takers the option of a moderated room or not so that honest people can avoid the buzz in the background, while the cheaters will most likely opt for the non-moderated room.
In Cloud scenarios, a distributed relational database is cumbersome or even impossible to maintain. Hence why lots of web companies have moved over to NoSQL solutions tailored to their processes.
So, you're describing centralized, local databases whereas the OP is focusing on decentralized, cloud databases.