Not an option with HTTP/2.0. Encryption is required - something it inherited from SPDY. This is because the SPDY designers very much do not want proxies getting in the way and potentially causing all sorts of screw-ups - it's just awkward when a string of perfectly innoculous data happens to trigger a profanity filter and causes a web-app to fail without obvious cause. Also, Google is an ad company, so they are naturally opposed to the other great function of HTTP proxies: Ad filtering.
Litecoin is well-established enough to actually have an exchange rate and at least one real business taking payment in it, but it's still no more than a shadow of bitcoin. It's designed a little differently - I don't know the details, but the configuration is set to allow for faster transactions, and there are more coins so each one will be worth less and so invoke less subdivision complexity. The idea is to be more practical than bitcoin for very small, time-limited payments. If you want to pay the equivilent of £5 for some time on the latest life-sucking MMO, you don't want to be left waiting six hours for a BC transaction to validate. This does come at the expense of a faster-growing blockchain.
I will admit that Microsoft's security is no longer the joke it was back in the 9x era, when they had only ineptly bolted multi-user support onto a single-user OS and suffered from their devotion to software backwards compatibility. But their business approach seems to have hardly altered. They still make heavy use of deliberate incompatibility, backroom deals and promotion via bundling. They are reluctant to support any technology they don't have the patents for (witness the h264 debacle, or the continued lack of native Vorbis support, or their pushing of the patent-encumbered exFAT filesystem, or IE's inability to handle animated PNG) and will support open standards only when they are so dominant as to leave no other option. The company is just very aggressive and underhanded in their approach to business.
It's already quite easy to add a * certificate to a browser to allow a proxy to intercept SSL. This is a standard practice in many LANs to allow the web filter to work on SSL pages - otherwise it'd be impossible to perform more than the most basic DNS/IP filtering on HTTPS sites, which would let a *lot* of undesired content through - google images alone would be quite the pornucopia.
All this proposal does is formalise the mechanism that people are already widely using. The end user still needs to explicitly authorise the proxy, no different than adding a * certificate today - and that's something so common, Windows lets you do it via group policy. The author's big fear seems to be that ISPs could start blocking everything unless the user authorises their proxy - and they could do that already, just be blocking everything unless the user authorises their * certificate!
And either way, they won't. For reasons of simple practicality. Sure, they could make the proxy authroisation process easy by giving a little 'config for dummies' executable. Easily done. Now repeat the same for the user's family with their three mobile phones (One android, one iOS, one blackberry), two games consoles, IP-connected streaming TV, the kid's PSP and DS (Or successor products), the tablet and the internet-connected burgler alarm. All of which will be using HTTP of some form to communicate with servers somewhere, and half of them over HTTPS, with the proportion shooting *way* up if HTTP/2.0 catches on.
I set up a mining thing to learn how it works too: My objective is to mine the minimum amount of bitcoin needed to achieve a payout on the mining pool. I've had a GPU running for a month now and it's more than half way there. It'll run up a power bill a bit higher than the value of the coin, of course, but I'm not doing it for the profit. Plus I spent a chunk of money on the GPU itsself, on the idea that one day I will think up a use for it.
Very difficult, really. There are very few problems which meet the technical requirements to use in the mining process, and mining is actually an essential part of how the technology works at a technological level. Just remember that conventional finance is hardly energy-efficient either.
The problem as I see it is that 'conventional' economics has managed to screw things up so badly that people are desperate for anything that promises an alternative approach avoiding the obvious weaknesses. Even if it clearly introduces new weaknesses.
Someone may one day make a lot of money running ferry ships from outpost settlements to Earth and back so very rich Muslims can visit Mecca. The target market may be very tiny, but their religlin obliges them to go if they can afford it.
Slashdot mangled my example link. Huh. Here's another example: http://birds-are-nice.me/CANar... Incidentally, if you can tell me what that song is, I'd be very grateful. If it's pre-1963 it's public domain in the UK and I can add it to me 'legal to use' collection.
I really couldn't agree more. That would be a great way to do things. It wasn't built in from the beginning because it wasn't practical until recently - storage just cost too much. It isn't being built in now because the existing models work-ish, and no influential organization has been willing to lend their backing to deploying the new technology.
I did have the idea of encoding the hash addresses as a 'magic directory' in HTTP - eg, http://your.server.com/CANary/...//filename. That way any browser or software aware of the address form can run a SHA search of reachable caches, while any non-aware software (or if the cache search fails) just interpret it as an HTTP address and get the file the old way. Even if there are no caches in reachable, it'd still save a lot of IMS requests when re-visiting a website.
Making personal or household devices public cache servers is probably not the best idea though. Privacy concerns - it wouldn't take long for someone to write a script that queries a specified cache for the top thousand video hashes from the popular porn sites and see if they have it stored already.
Another good example is the political unpopularity of rehabilitation programs for prisoners. They may help to prevent repeat offending, but they also insult people's sense of justice. They want to see the criminals made to suffer - doing anything to help them just feels wrong.
"senior approval for any such collection that is allowed"
Can the officials with that authority just grant a blanket power to monitor everyone, and make that order secret? If so (And the scale of the monitoring show it must be so) then that protection isn't worth much.
NK is not the most connected country. The launch systems almost certainly aren't networked (Even the most idiotic designer is going to want an air gap), and probably don't use the most sophisticated of computerized control systems. I wouldn't be surprised if the silo doors are operated by ladder-logic controllers. There might just be nothing to hack. The greatest vulnerability is probably communications from whereever central command is (I'm sure they have a somewhat unimpressive immitation of NORAD burried somwhere) to the missiles - the radio links can be knocked out via simple jamming at sufficient power, but there are sure to be landline backups. Possibly via teletype machine.
Electronic warfare exploits an enemies sophisticated technology against them. NK may have the ability to build a nuclear bomb, but it may well be launched with computer systems that would have been considered obsolete twenty years ago. I expect they are reluctant to depend upon imported components, so a lot of it will be long-outdated.
Same thing on movie stars, yes. There's only so much room in public awareness for so many superstars. The lack of a self-limiting mechanism on pay has another effect in both cases: A great many aspiring athletes and actors who just don't have the talent to make it into the top leagues, and a surplus of athletes and actors further down the ability scale. Most of whome eventually realise their dreams of stardom are unrealistic and try to move into a new career, but only after wasting many years of training.
Slashdot Mirror
Not an option with HTTP/2.0. Encryption is required - something it inherited from SPDY. This is because the SPDY designers very much do not want proxies getting in the way and potentially causing all sorts of screw-ups - it's just awkward when a string of perfectly innoculous data happens to trigger a profanity filter and causes a web-app to fail without obvious cause. Also, Google is an ad company, so they are naturally opposed to the other great function of HTTP proxies: Ad filtering.
Litecoin is well-established enough to actually have an exchange rate and at least one real business taking payment in it, but it's still no more than a shadow of bitcoin. It's designed a little differently - I don't know the details, but the configuration is set to allow for faster transactions, and there are more coins so each one will be worth less and so invoke less subdivision complexity. The idea is to be more practical than bitcoin for very small, time-limited payments. If you want to pay the equivilent of £5 for some time on the latest life-sucking MMO, you don't want to be left waiting six hours for a BC transaction to validate. This does come at the expense of a faster-growing blockchain.
Because some televisions come with built-in netflix streaming support.
I will admit that Microsoft's security is no longer the joke it was back in the 9x era, when they had only ineptly bolted multi-user support onto a single-user OS and suffered from their devotion to software backwards compatibility. But their business approach seems to have hardly altered. They still make heavy use of deliberate incompatibility, backroom deals and promotion via bundling. They are reluctant to support any technology they don't have the patents for (witness the h264 debacle, or the continued lack of native Vorbis support, or their pushing of the patent-encumbered exFAT filesystem, or IE's inability to handle animated PNG) and will support open standards only when they are so dominant as to leave no other option. The company is just very aggressive and underhanded in their approach to business.
It's already quite easy to add a * certificate to a browser to allow a proxy to intercept SSL. This is a standard practice in many LANs to allow the web filter to work on SSL pages - otherwise it'd be impossible to perform more than the most basic DNS/IP filtering on HTTPS sites, which would let a *lot* of undesired content through - google images alone would be quite the pornucopia.
All this proposal does is formalise the mechanism that people are already widely using. The end user still needs to explicitly authorise the proxy, no different than adding a * certificate today - and that's something so common, Windows lets you do it via group policy. The author's big fear seems to be that ISPs could start blocking everything unless the user authorises their proxy - and they could do that already, just be blocking everything unless the user authorises their * certificate!
And either way, they won't. For reasons of simple practicality. Sure, they could make the proxy authroisation process easy by giving a little 'config for dummies' executable. Easily done. Now repeat the same for the user's family with their three mobile phones (One android, one iOS, one blackberry), two games consoles, IP-connected streaming TV, the kid's PSP and DS (Or successor products), the tablet and the internet-connected burgler alarm. All of which will be using HTTP of some form to communicate with servers somewhere, and half of them over HTTPS, with the proportion shooting *way* up if HTTP/2.0 catches on.
Dogecoin was never intended as a serious cryptocurrency. It's a joke currency.
I set up a mining thing to learn how it works too: My objective is to mine the minimum amount of bitcoin needed to achieve a payout on the mining pool. I've had a GPU running for a month now and it's more than half way there. It'll run up a power bill a bit higher than the value of the coin, of course, but I'm not doing it for the profit. Plus I spent a chunk of money on the GPU itsself, on the idea that one day I will think up a use for it.
Very difficult, really. There are very few problems which meet the technical requirements to use in the mining process, and mining is actually an essential part of how the technology works at a technological level. Just remember that conventional finance is hardly energy-efficient either.
The problem as I see it is that 'conventional' economics has managed to screw things up so badly that people are desperate for anything that promises an alternative approach avoiding the obvious weaknesses. Even if it clearly introduces new weaknesses.
There are really only three: Bitcoin, litecoin and 'other.' Brand recognition matters - only those two have managed to achieve any significent value.
Someone may one day make a lot of money running ferry ships from outpost settlements to Earth and back so very rich Muslims can visit Mecca. The target market may be very tiny, but their religlin obliges them to go if they can afford it.
More space for the rest of us.
It's still a very inelegent cache though - it only provides caching for a single service, at one additional level.
We're more of a bacterial mass-transport vehicle.
Slashdot mangled my example link. Huh. Here's another example:
http://birds-are-nice.me/CANar...
Incidentally, if you can tell me what that song is, I'd be very grateful. If it's pre-1963 it's public domain in the UK and I can add it to me 'legal to use' collection.
I really couldn't agree more. That would be a great way to do things. It wasn't built in from the beginning because it wasn't practical until recently - storage just cost too much. It isn't being built in now because the existing models work-ish, and no influential organization has been willing to lend their backing to deploying the new technology.
I did have the idea of encoding the hash addresses as a 'magic directory' in HTTP - eg, http://your.server.com/CANary/...//filename. That way any browser or software aware of the address form can run a SHA search of reachable caches, while any non-aware software (or if the cache search fails) just interpret it as an HTTP address and get the file the old way. Even if there are no caches in reachable, it'd still save a lot of IMS requests when re-visiting a website.
Making personal or household devices public cache servers is probably not the best idea though. Privacy concerns - it wouldn't take long for someone to write a script that queries a specified cache for the top thousand video hashes from the popular porn sites and see if they have it stored already.
It would be if copyright law was remotely enforceable online.
Another good example is the political unpopularity of rehabilitation programs for prisoners. They may help to prevent repeat offending, but they also insult people's sense of justice. They want to see the criminals made to suffer - doing anything to help them just feels wrong.
"senior approval for any such collection that is allowed"
Can the officials with that authority just grant a blanket power to monitor everyone, and make that order secret? If so (And the scale of the monitoring show it must be so) then that protection isn't worth much.
Iran is not a technological backwater.
NK is not the most connected country. The launch systems almost certainly aren't networked (Even the most idiotic designer is going to want an air gap), and probably don't use the most sophisticated of computerized control systems. I wouldn't be surprised if the silo doors are operated by ladder-logic controllers. There might just be nothing to hack. The greatest vulnerability is probably communications from whereever central command is (I'm sure they have a somewhat unimpressive immitation of NORAD burried somwhere) to the missiles - the radio links can be knocked out via simple jamming at sufficient power, but there are sure to be landline backups. Possibly via teletype machine.
Electronic warfare exploits an enemies sophisticated technology against them. NK may have the ability to build a nuclear bomb, but it may well be launched with computer systems that would have been considered obsolete twenty years ago. I expect they are reluctant to depend upon imported components, so a lot of it will be long-outdated.
What did you think gaffer tape was for?
You could use it to make thermite too, but the process of preparing from foil it wouldn't be practical on a plane - it needs to be finely powdered.
I'm British. I mean football, not handegg.
Same thing on movie stars, yes. There's only so much room in public awareness for so many superstars. The lack of a self-limiting mechanism on pay has another effect in both cases: A great many aspiring athletes and actors who just don't have the talent to make it into the top leagues, and a surplus of athletes and actors further down the ability scale. Most of whome eventually realise their dreams of stardom are unrealistic and try to move into a new career, but only after wasting many years of training.
The financial industry doesn't achieve anything good directly. Their utility comes from what they allow other industries and individuals to do.