I've seen it mentioned somewhere, though I have no reference to hand so this may be complete BS, that smokers cost health systems (when retirement is included) *less* on average because although they have more heath problems that results in them dying younger and therefore having substantially less cost during old age.
which if true leads to the slightly paradoxical idea that smokers should pay *less* rather than *more* for their healthcare.
.uk has TLD for incorporated companies (which in the UK are suchandsuch Ltd, or blahblah Plc - or their equivalents in at least welsh)
Those are.ltd.uk and.plc.uk. You get one domain that matches up with the registered name of your company.
Those domains basically don't get used. For one, they aren't widely known even to exist. For another the "high street" trading name of a company often doesn't match up with the name under which you're trading - (eg subway would get doctorsassociates.inc - *not* subway.inc)
The IPs don't "belong" to the ISPs anyway - they are a communal shared resource. The mechanism of assigning blocks to ISPs is for routing and administrative convenience.
And they don't cost the ISPs anything per address - RIPE membership, for example, costs a flat fee no matter how many IP addresses they have allocated to them.
You can say "we paid %10000 to set up our network and have 1000 IPs, so thats %10 per IP", but to have 2000 IPs would still have cost them %10000.
IMHO, the web searching applications for your desktop are going to be the next wave.
Sherlock on the Mac has done that for several years... It is pretty easy to extend it to work on arbitrary search engines, too. (via an XML-like config file)
i guess it would depend a little on if people start leaving their pc's on all the time. anybody know of "normal" people who like leaving their machines on?
My experience has always been, that normal people react with amazement when they here that I leave my machines on all the time, and then a few weeks later start doing it themselves...
What you couldn't pay me enough to do is to let anonymous third parties run my code. These distributed-processing people need to take a lesson from the online gaming community: Your clients will cheat, and they are smarter than you.
Some computations can be made in such a way that you can check the work that other people have done.
For example, if I am trying to find giant prime numbers, I can distribute out individual numbers to check to all the workers. Each worker can then test to see if it is a prime, and can then convince me that the number is not a prime by giving me a factor of the number. I can check this much faster than I could test the number for primality.
Attacks against this can take the form of the attacker claiming that the number I have issued him is a prime, causing me to expend my own (limited) compute time on checking this claim. Coupling this with, as epaulson said, double checking, or even triple checking, this can be minimised.
So I can still benefit (but not as much as in a fully trusted scenario) from a distributed untrusted computing infrastructure.
This particular model was one of only three 4-rotor models (according to
the BBC). Other Enigma machines used three rotors and therefore were less secure.
I believe I have used this particular machine (before it was stolen:-) and it was a little bit knackered anyway - a few of the output lights didn't illuminate.
Then you are starting to venture down that terrible terrible path of the "clueless user needing to be forcibly prevented from doing anything that could be potentially harmful.
Surely not that revolutionary? Many people have their bookmarks file on their webspace (I do) and engines such as google rank pages by how many links they have. They even take into account the "quality" of the page that is doing the linking.
The PC World article specifically criticises google for being "unable to organize" the links very well, yet seems to use the same technique itself. What gives?
A paper about the inner workings of google is available is in HTML. I went to look at the HotLinks link in the original article and it was all blank:-( oh I see it uses some form of scripting to redirect you... whatever happened to 30x return codes?
But surely this doesn't affect the routing tables?
If I have 1 node, you have one routing entry to point at my single node with a/32 prefix... if I have 65000 nodes, then you have one routing entry with a/16 prefix. Same number of routing entries, either way.
But when it comes down to it, when there are enough people there, there has to be a government... it might be a UN recognised government, or it might arise informally at first - what happens the first time someone on the ISS accuses someone else of stealing? If they hold an internal "court" to sort it out, with everyone agreeing to abide by the "courts" decision, then that is the nucleus of government.
you could build something based on the old UUCP bang!separated!path!model Individual name servers can give a referral based on another name. But you would still need some "root nodes", where root nodes are a set of well connected nodes which all can refer to the same set of systems. This would be the equivalent of the... in UUCP style...!foo!bar!baz!myname No matter what system you evolve, if you want to be able to allocate unique names that everybody agrees on, you need some form of centralised registry and "root":-(
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen it mentioned somewhere, though I have no reference to hand so this may be complete BS, that smokers cost health systems (when retirement is included) *less* on average because although they have more heath problems that results in them dying younger and therefore having substantially less cost during old age.
which if true leads to the slightly paradoxical idea that smokers should pay *less* rather than *more* for their healthcare.
ok then another one:
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA doing business as Chase
chase.com? jpmorganchasebank.na.us
?
.uk has TLD for incorporated companies (which in the UK are suchandsuch Ltd, or blahblah Plc - or their equivalents in at least welsh)
Those are .ltd.uk and .plc.uk. You get one domain that matches up with the registered name of your company.
Those domains basically don't get used. For one, they aren't widely known even to exist. For another the "high street" trading name of a company often doesn't match up with the name under which you're trading - (eg subway would get doctorsassociates.inc - *not* subway.inc)
Already in place... check out hashcash.
(Actually, it is rather more complicated than simple passwords).
The IPs don't "belong" to the ISPs anyway - they are a communal shared resource. The mechanism of assigning blocks to ISPs is for routing and administrative convenience.
:-)
And they don't cost the ISPs anything per address - RIPE membership, for example, costs a flat fee no matter how many IP addresses they have allocated to them.
You can say "we paid %10000 to set up our network and have 1000 IPs, so thats %10 per IP", but to have 2000 IPs would still have cost them %10000.
% == generic currency symbol
Some computations can be made in such a way that you can check the work that other people have done.
For example, if I am trying to find giant prime numbers, I can distribute out individual numbers to check to all the workers. Each worker can then test to see if it is a prime, and can then convince me that the number is not a prime by giving me a factor of the number. I can check this much faster than I could test the number for primality.
Attacks against this can take the form of the attacker claiming that the number I have issued him is a prime, causing me to expend my own (limited) compute time on checking this claim. Coupling this with, as epaulson said, double checking, or even triple checking, this can be minimised.
So I can still benefit (but not as much as in a fully trusted scenario) from a distributed untrusted computing infrastructure.
This particular model was one of only three 4-rotor models (according to the BBC). Other Enigma machines used three rotors and therefore were less secure.
I believe I have used this particular machine (before it was stolenGoing by user-agent headers on hits to my webspace:
Googlebot indexes my site more often and in greater depth by far than the other search engines.
Now this is just one site - anybody else got robot stats?
Then you are starting to venture down that terrible terrible path of the "clueless user needing to be forcibly prevented from doing anything that could be potentially harmful.
Surely not that revolutionary? Many people have their bookmarks file on their webspace (I do) and engines such as google rank pages by how many links they have. They even take into account the "quality" of the page that is doing the linking.
The PC World article specifically criticises google for being "unable to organize" the links very well, yet seems to use the same technique itself. What gives?
A paper about the inner workings of google is available is in HTML. :-( oh I see it uses some form of scripting to redirect you ... whatever happened to 30x return codes?
I went to look at the HotLinks link in the original article and it was all blank
Which still get in the way of legitimate users and illegitimate users can bypass anyway. :-(
I wonder how much extra use the msid.msn.com server is getting tonight... it has certainly had a few hits from me that it wouldn't normally have.
But surely this doesn't affect the routing tables?
If I have 1 node, you have one routing entry to point at my single node with a /32 prefix... /16 prefix. Same number of routing entries, either way.
if I have 65000 nodes, then you have one routing entry with a
But when it comes down to it, when there are enough people there, there has to be a government... it might be a UN recognised government, or it might arise informally at first - what happens the first time someone on the ISS accuses someone else of stealing? If they hold an internal "court" to sort it out, with everyone agreeing to abide by the "courts" decision, then that is the nucleus of government.
That would get your head used to higher gravity, but not your feet. On alternate days you would have to swing the person by their hair.
you could build something based on the old UUCP bang!separated!path!model Individual name servers can give a referral based on another name. ... in UUCP style ...!foo!bar!baz!myname :-(
But you would still need some "root nodes", where root nodes are a set of well connected nodes which all can refer to the same set of systems. This would be the equivalent of the
No matter what system you evolve, if you want to be able to allocate unique names that everybody agrees on, you need some form of centralised registry and "root"