Slight correction: It does include protection from MITM attacks: There's a hash for the content that the endpoint verifies. So it does prevent spoofing content, so long as the endpoint has the correct address. It does't stop your ISP from monitoring exactly what you are getting though - it makes that a whole lot easier, as there's no way the requests could be encrypted.
That's the main selling point. It gives routers a lot more information about what they are routing, allowing them to enforce usage rules. Things like 'only redistribute content signed by those who paid to use our new content distribution system' or 'Do not distribute media from Netflix tagged as licensed for distribution in the US only.'
There's the core of a good idea. CAN is a great idea - power savings, bandwidth savings, faster internet, more reliable, hosting costs slashed. But this starts off with CAN and then layers on top of it layer upon layer of hideous complexity, most of which is designed not to bring faster performace to the end user but rather to provide ISPs with an incentive to deploy it by enabling new business models by which they may screw said end users over.
I doubt many ISPs will let your content benefit from this new technology. They'll be keeping it only for their favored distribution partners. Not least because if it was available to all people, it'd become the single greatest advancement in piracy since the invention of usenet binaries. Can you imagine what would happen if this worked an was open to all? I could distribute a 4GB movie rip to a million people with ease, no messing with p2p networks, it would be no harder than sticking it up on a webserver. So could every dodgy russian website offering free movies. There's no way ISPs could permit that to happen - that's one of the big reasons none have invested in developing simpler CAN technology. This NDN system includes public-key verification of the publisher, so ISPs can make sure their networks only cache and improve the performance of content from trusted partners who have the influence and/or money to get on the whitelist.
It looks like they started out with Content Addressible Networking, which is a great idea. Massive bandwidth savings, improved resilience, faster performance, power savings, everything you could want. But then rather than try to impliment CAN properly alongside conventional networking they went for some ridiculous micro-caching thing, over-complicated intermediate nodes that enforce usage rules, some form of insane public-key versioning system validated by intermediate nodes and generally ended up with a monstrosity.
CAN is a great idea. NDN is a terrible implimentation of CAN. The main selling points include having DRM capability built into the network itsself, so if you try to download something not authorised for your country the ISP router can detect and block it. A simple distributed cache would achieve the same benefits with a much simpler design.
There's the core of a great idea in there, burried deep in the heap of over-engineered complexity that appears designed not to bring benefits to performance but rather to allow ISPs to readily decide exactly what content they wish to allow to be distributed and by whome. This thing is designed to allow the network devices to transcode video in real time to a lower bitrate - putting that kind of intelligence in the network is insane!
They wouldn't have to be servers. They can be old-fashioned paper books. Specifically the XOR of two or more books storred at seperate locations, and no one individual granted access to both.
HTML isn't just one file any more. It's often supplimented by CSS, rewritten on the fly by javascript that pulls additional content from new URLs, and quite dynamic in general. It's quite possible for a browser to start downloading images before it has the HTML fully rendered.
I find the shootings less interesting than the reaction to them. Every time one happens you immediately see half the internet commenters proclaim 'Teenagers should not have access to guns!' and the other half proclaim 'All teenagers should carry guns to defend themselves against crazed shooters!'
The problem is testing: Many manufacturers bodge up enough EFI boot support to load windows and proclaim it done. Then when you try to boot linux you find it doesn't work, because it isn't properly following the EFI spec: It's following the parts of the spec that Windows needs.
Nuclear ships have a very simple way around this: They run at full power most of the time, and dump the excess energy when not needed to run the engines. It's horribly inefficient, but even used with such inefficiency nuclear reactors still pack an energy density that puts any diesel engine to shame.
Remember what happened after the Fukushima reactor's unplanned shutdown: Emergency pumps had to be rushed in to keep cooling water running through the core. It's called decay heat: Even if you shove all the control rods in full, it still takes a long time to stop emiting heat. Ramping up is easier, but still not thirty seconds.
The article doesn't give reasoning, but as he has no objection to high-speed internet once the filtering is in place I'm guessing his objection isn't to the technology but the content. The internet is full of things that would be regarded as corrupting by many in Iran. Not just the obvious pornography and blasphemy - this is a country where forign films often have to be edited to raise the necklines of women's clothing or chop of the arms off an unmarried couple so they aren't holding hands.
It's an IM program. Fully decentralised. All communications encrypted, authenticated by swapping public keys to make a contact. Supports realtime chat, mail, even distributed forums. Also excellent file sharing capability. The protocol is written to support voice or video, but the client doesn't include that. It can't be shut down, it's near-impossible to monitor without compromising an end-point, and it's very difficult to block at a network level without blocking all SSL traffic. Use it and annoy the NSA.
Not my project, I've no involvement at all. I just think it's really good. I've quite a few friends on it now. It's like the old WASTE, except less buggy and still under active development.
You assume it actually works. There's no evidence it's actually stopped any terrorist attack. Further, even if it did, it's still on dubious legal grounds - the government is effectively harming people by restricting their ability to travel, and is doing so without any accountability. No independent judge, no trial, no legal representation, not even the most basic right to see the evidence against them. It's the type of unaccountable secret legal process you'd expect to see in North Korea - given a bit of a PR makeover and introduced to the US.
I think they would be very happy if the rest of Europe were utilizing GLONASS, a system they can shut down or manipulate if they need to. There's a reason for the four different sat-nav systems currently under operation or construction: No country wants to be dependent on a system operated by someone else. It follows that they would like other countries to be dependent upon theirs.
The most plausible explanation I've seen so far is that the separatists were supplied with the missiles but, due to the need for Russia to maintain deniability, not an expert in their use - just a crash course in how to fire the things, without full training in target identification. That would explain how they were able to make such an error as mistaking a giant passenger airliner for a small military aircraft.
It's possible that Ukraine shot it down, they use the same missiles, but their army consists of trained professional soldiers who would be less likely to make such an error. The separatists have some of those now (Russians who just happen to be on leave and came to fight 'voluntarily'), but didn't at the time of the incident.
I'm a former A&L customer too, but I never really noticed any change at all. But maybe that's because I use them only for the current account service, no loans or credit cards or other tools of finance.
But I've got to contact them soon about a soon-to-mature savings bond I got years ago, so we shall see.
Given that heart disease is one of the biggest causers of natural death, I'd think there would be plenty of pressure to research that.
Ebola, for all the scaryness, doesn't actually kill many people. That's why there's no drug for it: Not enough dead to be worth the research investment. It's generally too lethal to spread, baring the occasional outbreak.
Slashdot Mirror
Slight correction: It does include protection from MITM attacks: There's a hash for the content that the endpoint verifies. So it does prevent spoofing content, so long as the endpoint has the correct address. It does't stop your ISP from monitoring exactly what you are getting though - it makes that a whole lot easier, as there's no way the requests could be encrypted.
That's the main selling point. It gives routers a lot more information about what they are routing, allowing them to enforce usage rules. Things like 'only redistribute content signed by those who paid to use our new content distribution system' or 'Do not distribute media from Netflix tagged as licensed for distribution in the US only.'
There's the core of a good idea. CAN is a great idea - power savings, bandwidth savings, faster internet, more reliable, hosting costs slashed. But this starts off with CAN and then layers on top of it layer upon layer of hideous complexity, most of which is designed not to bring faster performace to the end user but rather to provide ISPs with an incentive to deploy it by enabling new business models by which they may screw said end users over.
I doubt many ISPs will let your content benefit from this new technology. They'll be keeping it only for their favored distribution partners. Not least because if it was available to all people, it'd become the single greatest advancement in piracy since the invention of usenet binaries. Can you imagine what would happen if this worked an was open to all? I could distribute a 4GB movie rip to a million people with ease, no messing with p2p networks, it would be no harder than sticking it up on a webserver. So could every dodgy russian website offering free movies. There's no way ISPs could permit that to happen - that's one of the big reasons none have invested in developing simpler CAN technology. This NDN system includes public-key verification of the publisher, so ISPs can make sure their networks only cache and improve the performance of content from trusted partners who have the influence and/or money to get on the whitelist.
It looks like they started out with Content Addressible Networking, which is a great idea. Massive bandwidth savings, improved resilience, faster performance, power savings, everything you could want. But then rather than try to impliment CAN properly alongside conventional networking they went for some ridiculous micro-caching thing, over-complicated intermediate nodes that enforce usage rules, some form of insane public-key versioning system validated by intermediate nodes and generally ended up with a monstrosity.
CAN is a great idea. NDN is a terrible implimentation of CAN. The main selling points include having DRM capability built into the network itsself, so if you try to download something not authorised for your country the ISP router can detect and block it. A simple distributed cache would achieve the same benefits with a much simpler design.
There's the core of a great idea in there, burried deep in the heap of over-engineered complexity that appears designed not to bring benefits to performance but rather to allow ISPs to readily decide exactly what content they wish to allow to be distributed and by whome. This thing is designed to allow the network devices to transcode video in real time to a lower bitrate - putting that kind of intelligence in the network is insane!
There's also the fire button: A literal kill switch.
Trusted-code-only app signing on Windows RT.
I'm sure someone could crack it but... why bother?
They wouldn't have to be servers. They can be old-fashioned paper books. Specifically the XOR of two or more books storred at seperate locations, and no one individual granted access to both.
There's a point where you are intelligent enough to play with the dangerous stuff, but not intelligent enough not to.
Stupid breeds.
I think that excuse was made up after the fact.
HTML isn't just one file any more. It's often supplimented by CSS, rewritten on the fly by javascript that pulls additional content from new URLs, and quite dynamic in general. It's quite possible for a browser to start downloading images before it has the HTML fully rendered.
With one difference: Take a look at the books. Voltaire was a great writer. This guy... not so much.
I find the shootings less interesting than the reaction to them. Every time one happens you immediately see half the internet commenters proclaim 'Teenagers should not have access to guns!' and the other half proclaim 'All teenagers should carry guns to defend themselves against crazed shooters!'
The problem is testing: Many manufacturers bodge up enough EFI boot support to load windows and proclaim it done. Then when you try to boot linux you find it doesn't work, because it isn't properly following the EFI spec: It's following the parts of the spec that Windows needs.
Nuclear ships have a very simple way around this: They run at full power most of the time, and dump the excess energy when not needed to run the engines. It's horribly inefficient, but even used with such inefficiency nuclear reactors still pack an energy density that puts any diesel engine to shame.
Remember what happened after the Fukushima reactor's unplanned shutdown: Emergency pumps had to be rushed in to keep cooling water running through the core. It's called decay heat: Even if you shove all the control rods in full, it still takes a long time to stop emiting heat. Ramping up is easier, but still not thirty seconds.
Well-written legalese is the law version of a programming language. Like programming languages, legalese can also be used to conceal intent.
The article doesn't give reasoning, but as he has no objection to high-speed internet once the filtering is in place I'm guessing his objection isn't to the technology but the content. The internet is full of things that would be regarded as corrupting by many in Iran. Not just the obvious pornography and blasphemy - this is a country where forign films often have to be edited to raise the necklines of women's clothing or chop of the arms off an unmarried couple so they aren't holding hands.
In that system, anything can mean anything with enough twisting.
http://retroshare.sourceforge....
It's an IM program. Fully decentralised. All communications encrypted, authenticated by swapping public keys to make a contact. Supports realtime chat, mail, even distributed forums. Also excellent file sharing capability. The protocol is written to support voice or video, but the client doesn't include that. It can't be shut down, it's near-impossible to monitor without compromising an end-point, and it's very difficult to block at a network level without blocking all SSL traffic. Use it and annoy the NSA.
Not my project, I've no involvement at all. I just think it's really good. I've quite a few friends on it now. It's like the old WASTE, except less buggy and still under active development.
A joint effort between many nations who, in the event of conflict, will act as one allied block. Probably alongside the US.
You assume it actually works. There's no evidence it's actually stopped any terrorist attack. Further, even if it did, it's still on dubious legal grounds - the government is effectively harming people by restricting their ability to travel, and is doing so without any accountability. No independent judge, no trial, no legal representation, not even the most basic right to see the evidence against them. It's the type of unaccountable secret legal process you'd expect to see in North Korea - given a bit of a PR makeover and introduced to the US.
I think they would be very happy if the rest of Europe were utilizing GLONASS, a system they can shut down or manipulate if they need to. There's a reason for the four different sat-nav systems currently under operation or construction: No country wants to be dependent on a system operated by someone else. It follows that they would like other countries to be dependent upon theirs.
The most plausible explanation I've seen so far is that the separatists were supplied with the missiles but, due to the need for Russia to maintain deniability, not an expert in their use - just a crash course in how to fire the things, without full training in target identification. That would explain how they were able to make such an error as mistaking a giant passenger airliner for a small military aircraft.
It's possible that Ukraine shot it down, they use the same missiles, but their army consists of trained professional soldiers who would be less likely to make such an error. The separatists have some of those now (Russians who just happen to be on leave and came to fight 'voluntarily'), but didn't at the time of the incident.
I'm a former A&L customer too, but I never really noticed any change at all. But maybe that's because I use them only for the current account service, no loans or credit cards or other tools of finance.
But I've got to contact them soon about a soon-to-mature savings bond I got years ago, so we shall see.
Given that heart disease is one of the biggest causers of natural death, I'd think there would be plenty of pressure to research that.
Ebola, for all the scaryness, doesn't actually kill many people. That's why there's no drug for it: Not enough dead to be worth the research investment. It's generally too lethal to spread, baring the occasional outbreak.
They are quite happy to support 'big government' when it advances one of their more specific agendas, though.