Also, googling around fails to turn up any Linux/StrongArm version. And I have no idea if the Zaurus version would work on my ipaq or mp3 player, even if it were available.
Re:Lets hope they open source it
on
Google to Buy Opera?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Don't diss it because it's not OSS.
Because it's not OSS, it won't run on many of my machines (where mozilla and KHTML will). They have a reasonable number of platforms but are still missing StrongArm/Linux (half my machines).:-/
Yeah, you get weaker (which works off as you gain more xp), but you don't lose any items, so no need for body recovery, and even better - when you zone back to a city, the death penalty is erased.
This is the major reason I don't play online games. If there were a severe death penalty, the PvP culture would function better (ie far fewer people attacking randomly without cause, and far more social interaction, banding together in groups, etc), and without PvP there's not a huge incentive for me to play online.
My favorite dungeon crawl remains Nethack, where if you die you start a new level 1 character. A comprimise a la Henry Melton's Catacomb, where you don't lose the character but are locked out of the game for a day or so if you die, would be a reasonable mid-point (http://www.io.com/~hmelton/stories/h10.html -- a great take on MMORPGs from 1985). Or something like Autoduel, where you could buy a clone with massive financial investment (but even then, the clone was limited to you as you were at the time you bought it, and you lost any equipment you had out in the wild when you bought it).
Without steep death penalties, MMORPGs just turn into endless grinding with no risk and far less strategy than they'd have otherwise.
The right involved doesn't center on which side (if any) is government, and the theory outlined is that nobody can take your air space rights without contract/lease/condemnation/etc.
It points directly to the hypothetical I was arguing against where someone starts using a microwave communications link across my property and I am somehow then not allowed to build a building in that line of site, which is a ludicrous stance in general (though there may be a homestead right if they have a long-running business use that predates my ownership of the property).
This is why homes near airports are sold with avigation easements attached; the buyers know up front that they are buying land with a rider attached allowing the airport to fly over, cause noise/air pollution, etc. Those easements are generally attached via eminent domain or two-way contracts.
It's not uncommon in big cities for air rights to be contracted between private parties (e.g. the Trump Towers negotiated for part of Tiffany's air rights when it was built).
Or see US v. Causby: "The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense - by the erection of buildings and the like - is not material."
isn't exactly proof that nationwide, an individual can arbitrarily choose to deprive a business of a pre-existing stream of revenue and then demand a ransom
They can't. But they can stop a business from using their property for free to make money. It's not like blocking a public sidewalk or something, which would be unlawful.
No, you don't. You do not have the right to use my property, and I'm perfectly within my rights to build on it even if it's inconvenient to you or harms your business.
You can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me. Property rights don't extend from your basement to the orbit of Pluto.
Which is why the sentence immediately following what you quoted begins: "There are limitations on how high I can go". As I hinted at in the post, the Sears Tower's height was limited by FAA restrictions.
But even if it's wanted for very public goods, you still have property rights in the area immediately above your land. See e.g. Jankovich v. Toll Road Commission, 379 U.S. 487 (1965) where the Supreme Court held that airport restrictions forbidding someone from building a structure over a certain height constituted an illegal taking. (obviously eminent domain could be used in such a case, but that requires compensating property owners for their loss). If the local airport can't take your airspace without compensation, there's no way Bob's internet microwave services can stop me from building between their towers without some sort of contract or eminent domain proceeding.
If that is really what happened, I guess we are all living in the Matrix, while you guys have unplugged from it because the reality in every rational, sane person in the country thinks Bush won fair and square.
Most polls have/had about 20% of Americans believing that incidents of fraud aided the 2004 reelection campaign. So either your statement above is inaccurate or you think at least 1/5 of Americans are irrational and insane.
I actually don't think there was fraud, but your statement dismisses a fairly widely held minority opinion as being nonexistent.
If your building was there first I wouldn't be able to knock it down for my laser without eminent domain, but if my laser is there first and you decide to block it, I have a cause of action.
No, you don't. You do not have the right to use my property, and I'm perfectly within my rights to build on it even if it's inconvenient to you or harms your business. There are limitations on how high I can go and on mining rights, but assuming we're talking about something shorter than the Sears tower as long as I get the building permits I can go ahead and build even if you wanted to run a business in that airspace.
All of your "one cent a dih or I..." statements don't work for the same reason "one cent a plate or I stand outside your restaurant and vomit continually" doesn't work; civil suits.
There's a massive difference between your right to conduct business on your property without my interference and your right to conduct business on my property. Unless you have a contract with me to use my property, then your commerce therein is unlawful and I'm well within my rights to bar it. Of course, such contracts can be forced through eminent domain, but negotiating easements for use of the land (pay-for-use) is common even by power companies and others who have fairly easy recourse to eminent domain.
Because the wires wouldn't have gotten run without eminent domain.
Prove this. The original telegraphy and radiotelegraphy was created without government funding or mandate.
Absolutely untrue. The original telegraph companies had government-backed eminent domain powers. Further, they often relied on railroad landed (acquired through eminent domain). There were constant battles between the two; see, for instance, Western Union Tel Co v. Pennsylvania R Co, 195 U.S. 594 (1904), available at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=195&invol=594
The Pennsylvania statute (mentioned in that ruling) granting eminent domain to the telegraph company was absolutely typical, and telegraph companies in the US relied on such mandates. Normally such power was granted to a single company, giving it a monopoly in the state or region.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing what everone else is seeing on this one? Is is just because he's raised from the dead or something? I don't get it. When I originally read the novels many, many moons ago this connection never struck me, and I'm still finding the connection dubious to this day.
The whole Narnian story is about Christ...Supposing there really was a world like Narnia...and supposing Christ wanted to go into that world and save it (as He did ours) what might have happened?...The stories are my answer. Since Narnia is a world of talking beasts, I thought he would become a talking beast there as he became a man here. I pictured him becoming a lion there because a) the lion is supposed to be the king of beasts; b) Christ is called 'the lion of Judah' in the Bible. C.S Lewis, letter to a fan, 1961.
There are a lot of clues: He died for your sins so that you may be forgiven. Then he rises from the dead. In the movie, he ends up walking away across the water. There are tons of more subtle points, and the whole thing is written by a noted Christian philosopher/author.
But the brilliant thing is that unlike crap like Ayn Rand, Lewis uses his philosophy in the background without shoving it down your throat. So if you want to you can play "find the metaphor", but it also hangs together just fine as a story without being a thinly-veiled lesson/mass/whatever.
As a non-Christian, I enjoy it immensely.
And Lewis was a rational man. Though deeply Christian, I think the idea of teaching intelligent design in science curriculums would have offended him (though he might be fine with it in philosophy classrooms).
And even where it's available, it's not always legally usable (e.g. illegal to use on PDAs, tablet PCs, gaming machines, internet appliances, FreeBSD machines, etc). And even beyond that, the draconian audit policy makes it either illegal or against company policy for many people to use in work environments and unattractive for some to use at home.
Everything people trust to be protected and identified by x509 server certs (https, pops, imaps, , etc) has a major weakness: DNS. You can have all the eliptical curve crypto, 4096bit RSA keys, and even someday quantum crypto you want, it all fails utterly if DNS is compromised or spoofed
Please explain.
SSL is designed to ensure that DNS spoofing will cause SSL authentication failure. An attacker needs to hijack the domain name and get a matching (signed, trusted) certificate for that domain name in order to spoof a secure site. If they could get such a signed certificate, all kinds of passive man-in-the-middle attacks become viable (in other words, that's not a DNS problem, it's a far more severe problem in your key management).
The pesticide king is cotton. Cotton is adapted to a wide range of uses, and it spins easily, but the environmental costs of cotton cultivation are incalculable. Cotton is grown on 3% of the earths best arable land and uses a whopping 26% of the worlds pesticides. It is a demanding crop that requires heavy irrigation and consumes more than 7% of the fertilizer used annually. It exhausts the soil, but is widely grown by developing countries desperate for a cash crop to pay international debts
On pesticides cotton is a clear loser, one of the worst crops out there.
Hemp is even more nutrient-intensive, though, which contributes heavily to soil exhaustion. And hemp requires the soil be laid bare for a period each year, making it terrible as far as soil erosion. And it requires heavy irrigation. It's really not an environmental winner.
Hemp has a natural luster and takes dyes beautifully, due to its superior absorbency."
Except it doesn't take dyes beautifully, hemp paper requires a long sitting and drying period to avoid smearing because of the low absorbency. Apparently hemp-cotton blends do have high absorbency (higher than pure cotton or hemp), however.
An acre of land will produce about 1000 pounds of primary hemp fiber, about 2 or 3 more times fiber than cotton
A favorite flawed stat of pro-hemp advocates. Only the bast fiber winds up being useable, so 75% of the primary fiber is discarded. As far as how much acreage you need to make the end-product, hemp is a loser to cotton for fabric and to pine for wood.
Fiber comes right off the plant ready to comb and use
This is a laugh. Hemp is one of the most labor-intensive plants to process for good commercial-grade fiber. This might be a partially false problem, since it's possible that with legalization (which I'm strongly in favor of) we'd see better mechanization, but we can't be sure of that.
Hemp fiber paper has many beneficial characteristics, including high tensile strength, opacity, tearing resistance, wet strength, and folding endurance.
These are all strengths, and the same properties make it great for the applications I pointed out above.
Hemp has a low lignin content, so a non-Kraft, non-chlorine bleach mill is feasible
As is this.
It's a great fiber for some applications, but it's not the environmental, economic, social cure-all people would have you believe.
It's also worth noting that most of the benefits you point out are also benefits of the more environmentally-friendly flax fiber.
Hemp is _not_ highly absorbent. Hemp paper requires special drying processes to get the ink to set without smearing. High absorbency isn't a major factor in cloth diapers. And it is very coarse relative to cotton and other alternatives.
Hemp does have a number of advantages, including durability, better rot-resistance, and great strength. It's also quite expensive as production is very labor-intensive, and use of hemp fiber is not nearly as environmentally sound as people would have you believe. For instance, while it does produce more fiber per acre than, say, a pine farm, you wind up discarding 75% of the fiber to get the good bast off the stems. So to produce the same end-user products winds up requiring far more acreage than alternative crops--and it's acreage that contributes far more to soil erosion than a wood or cotton farm. And, of course, most hemp used in the US is grown in China with all the labor issues that encompasses (though sane public policy legalizing hemp use could eliminate that problem).
That said, hemp is a good crop for some applications--tea bags, cigarette papers, canvas, rope, etc. And it's a useful mixin for strengthening other fibers in some cloths.
IIRC - Hemp is a better fibre than cotton - at least FAR easier to grow, seeing as it grows like a weed
Hemp is _not_ a better fiber than cotton for most purposes, which is why back before it was banned in 1930 there were only about 1300 acres of land cultivated for hemp in the US and only a couple thousand tons total consumption (including imports), almost all of it used for rope. (And no, Dow didn't squash hemp use to promote its new nylon; nylon at that time was used almost exclusively in pantyhose, which is a market hemp was never in).
Among other things, hemp fiber has poor absorbency (making it terrible for paper products) and is quite coarse (making it poor for most clothing uses). Hemp cellulose has no consistent grain and doesn't make for construction-grade lumber. It makes for fine canvas, rope, particle board, and passable jeans, but you absolutely wouldn't want to wear fine clothing or even T-shirts made from hemp fiber unless you're making a political statement--and even those are a hemp/cotton blend since pure hemp is really lousy for those applications..
Primarily to ensure that access in remote rural areas is available at the same cost as access in urban areas.
The definition allows for price breaks on long distance calls for low-income individuals as well, but the vast majority of that funding goes to ensuring that someone out in the middle of nowhere has dial tone, 911 access, directory assitance, operator access, touch tone, single-party service, and long-distance access at the same cost as people in urban settings.
As I understand it, it should actually be possible to do it in-house, simply by including your own root cert in every machine and workstation deployed, thus making them trust your own stuff.
That works okay in some situations, but there are reasonable scenarios that I outlined in my post which it won't help with.
Being able to connect to those machines from others that don't have a pre-installed trust relationship with a particular CA is also plausible (say, an admin who is on vacation needing to do some work from his parent's machine, who could list a few critical http fingerprints in his wallet alongside ssh/pgp prints).
The current situation is vastly preferrable to one where unknown certs are rejected.
If the key isn't signed, it could be anyone doing location bar trickery and man-in-the-middle whatnot.
Also, this is impossible in the scenario I outlined unless the attacker can create valid keys matching your fingerprints (in which case your cryptographic hash function is inadequate and there are likely to be much more effective attacks at his disposal independent of whether you're using keys signed by a CA or not).
If you trust the root server, then you can trust anything signed by them
Not necessarily (see GPG webs of trust). But sure, if I trust a root server as an introducer then I trust anything they sign.
That still doesn't change the fact that if even if I trust (say) Verisign, I have to pay them to sign a cert for me. Whereas I can trust myself, sign my certs for internal use for free, and verify fingerprints as I connect. Even for some semipublic applications it could be a reasonable course of action to distribute a fingerprint through a secure channel rather than rely on a third party introducer (of course, this is only true if your target audience is quite savvy, and for general-purpose public sites it's absolutely the wrong thing to do).
It also doesn't help if I have a very sensitive application I might _not_ trust anyone but me.
And it also doesn't help me if all the trusted authorities refuse to sign a key for me--incredibly unlikely today, but potentially plausible down the line (say for a site strongly critical of the core Cert Authorities, or politically outspoken, or strongly religious, or whatever).
You really do need both, and eliminating self-signed certs (which is what I was objecting to) would be a very bad thing.
Imagine if you needed to go to a central authority to get ssh keys for every server you have in your office, and pay them $50 a year for each one. Why should you have to do that with http if you're willing to do careful key management in-house? Having a secure http server with a different key on every desktop is certainly a plausible scenario for some things (remote admin or whatever). Being able to connect to those machines from others that don't have a pre-installed trust relationship with a particular CA is also plausible (say, an admin who is on vacation needing to do some work from his parent's machine, who could list a few critical http fingerprints in his wallet alongside ssh/pgp prints).
The same way you do with SSH or PGP. You verify the fingerprint, which you received by some other channel secure enough for your purposes. That could be simply over the phone from someone whose CallerID and voice you recognize or could be a trusted courier with a locked case. It could even be IM if you're just testing how to set up SSL certs and don't really care if this one is secure or not since you're going to wipe it for a real one later.
People have been doing it for years.
It's not a good general purpose solution for the uneducated, but forcing people who know what they're doing to outsource key management is equally poor. Ideally the browser messages would be along the lines of SSH.
1. Warn you when the key is unknown and ask you to verify the fingerprint. Perhaps require you to enter the print (type it in) to use a self-signed key. 2. Refuse to connect if the key has changed.
Other scenarios (expired key, etc) require some thought and local policy decisions.
the little legal action they took increased cross-browser PNG compatibility to the point that people can safely put non-transparent PNG images on their web pages today. Only if you use Firefox/Opera/anything-but-IE. Internet explorer still puts up an ugly brown blotch behind transparent PNGs
Nope. That's no dream. For most of a decade, the entire thing was run from Linus' INBOX. Various other kernel developers used CVS (etc.), but Linus HATES CVS. (And I don't blame him one bit.)
I'm not sure why this was flagged funny.
It was literally Linus' INBOX that ran things. He had a whole series of scripts to apply patches from the INBOX, etc. And one of the first things he made sure Larry Mcvoy did when implementing bitkeeper was have commands to send/recieve patches in a similar email format so he could use his old scripts as needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, googling around fails to turn up any Linux/StrongArm version. And I have no idea if the Zaurus version would work on my ipaq or mp3 player, even if it were available.
I went to the Opera download site and saw no option to download it for my platform. I see no Zaurus option there, so it's hidden away somewhere else.
s
http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?custom=ye
Don't diss it because it's not OSS.
:-/
Because it's not OSS, it won't run on many of my machines (where mozilla and KHTML will). They have a reasonable number of platforms but are still missing StrongArm/Linux (half my machines).
This is the major reason I don't play online games. If there were a severe death penalty, the PvP culture would function better (ie far fewer people attacking randomly without cause, and far more social interaction, banding together in groups, etc), and without PvP there's not a huge incentive for me to play online.
My favorite dungeon crawl remains Nethack, where if you die you start a new level 1 character. A comprimise a la Henry Melton's Catacomb, where you don't lose the character but are locked out of the game for a day or so if you die, would be a reasonable mid-point (http://www.io.com/~hmelton/stories/h10.html -- a great take on MMORPGs from 1985). Or something like Autoduel, where you could buy a clone with massive financial investment (but even then, the clone was limited to you as you were at the time you bought it, and you lost any equipment you had out in the wild when you bought it).
Without steep death penalties, MMORPGs just turn into endless grinding with no risk and far less strategy than they'd have otherwise.
The right involved doesn't center on which side (if any) is government, and the theory outlined is that nobody can take your air space rights without contract/lease/condemnation/etc.
It points directly to the hypothetical I was arguing against where someone starts using a microwave communications link across my property and I am somehow then not allowed to build a building in that line of site, which is a ludicrous stance in general (though there may be a homestead right if they have a long-running business use that predates my ownership of the property).
This is why homes near airports are sold with avigation easements attached; the buyers know up front that they are buying land with a rider attached allowing the airport to fly over, cause noise/air pollution, etc. Those easements are generally attached via eminent domain or two-way contracts.
It's not uncommon in big cities for air rights to be contracted between private parties (e.g. the Trump Towers negotiated for part of Tiffany's air rights when it was built).
Or see US v. Causby:
"The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense - by the erection of buildings and the like - is not material."
isn't exactly proof that nationwide, an individual can arbitrarily choose to deprive a business of a pre-existing stream of revenue and then demand a ransom
They can't. But they can stop a business from using their property for free to make money. It's not like blocking a public sidewalk or something, which would be unlawful.
Which is why the sentence immediately following what you quoted begins: "There are limitations on how high I can go". As I hinted at in the post, the Sears Tower's height was limited by FAA restrictions.
But even if it's wanted for very public goods, you still have property rights in the area immediately above your land. See e.g. Jankovich v. Toll Road Commission, 379 U.S. 487 (1965) where the Supreme Court held that airport restrictions forbidding someone from building a structure over a certain height constituted an illegal taking. (obviously eminent domain could be used in such a case, but that requires compensating property owners for their loss). If the local airport can't take your airspace without compensation, there's no way Bob's internet microwave services can stop me from building between their towers without some sort of contract or eminent domain proceeding.
Most polls have/had about 20% of Americans believing that incidents of fraud aided the 2004 reelection campaign. So either your statement above is inaccurate or you think at least 1/5 of Americans are irrational and insane.
I actually don't think there was fraud, but your statement dismisses a fairly widely held minority opinion as being nonexistent.
If your building was there first I wouldn't be able to knock it down for my laser without eminent domain, but if my laser is there first and you decide to block it, I have a cause of action.
No, you don't. You do not have the right to use my property, and I'm perfectly within my rights to build on it even if it's inconvenient to you or harms your business. There are limitations on how high I can go and on mining rights, but assuming we're talking about something shorter than the Sears tower as long as I get the building permits I can go ahead and build even if you wanted to run a business in that airspace.
All of your "one cent a dih or I..." statements don't work for the same reason "one cent a plate or I stand outside your restaurant and vomit continually" doesn't work; civil suits.
There's a massive difference between your right to conduct business on your property without my interference and your right to conduct business on my property. Unless you have a contract with me to use my property, then your commerce therein is unlawful and I'm well within my rights to bar it. Of course, such contracts can be forced through eminent domain, but negotiating easements for use of the land (pay-for-use) is common even by power companies and others who have fairly easy recourse to eminent domain.
Absolutely untrue. The original telegraph companies had government-backed eminent domain powers. Further, they often relied on railroad landed (acquired through eminent domain). There were constant battles between the two; see, for instance, Western Union Tel Co v. Pennsylvania R Co, 195 U.S. 594 (1904), available at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
The Pennsylvania statute (mentioned in that ruling) granting eminent domain to the telegraph company was absolutely typical, and telegraph companies in the US relied on such mandates. Normally such power was granted to a single company, giving it a monopoly in the state or region.
Perhaps the better question is what purpose did this ever have in X to begin with. It's surely only being reproduced for nostalgia factor.
No, no, no. xeyes was added by the NSA to keep track of people. keyes is a sign that they've infiltrated the KDE dev team as well.
The whole Narnian story is about Christ...Supposing there really was a world like Narnia...and supposing Christ wanted to go into that world and save it (as He did ours) what might have happened?...The stories are my answer. Since Narnia is a world of talking beasts, I thought he would become a talking beast there as he became a man here. I pictured him becoming a lion there because a) the lion is supposed to be the king of beasts; b) Christ is called 'the lion of Judah' in the Bible. C.S Lewis, letter to a fan, 1961.
There are a lot of clues:
He died for your sins so that you may be forgiven. Then he rises from the dead. In the movie, he ends up walking away across the water. There are tons of more subtle points, and the whole thing is written by a noted Christian philosopher/author.
But the brilliant thing is that unlike crap like Ayn Rand, Lewis uses his philosophy in the background without shoving it down your throat. So if you want to you can play "find the metaphor", but it also hangs together just fine as a story without being a thinly-veiled lesson/mass/whatever.
As a non-Christian, I enjoy it immensely.
And Lewis was a rational man. Though deeply Christian, I think the idea of teaching intelligent design in science curriculums would have offended him (though he might be fine with it in philosophy classrooms).
You need a plug-in.
Which is not available on all platforms.
And even where it's available, it's not always legally usable (e.g. illegal to use on PDAs, tablet PCs, gaming machines, internet appliances, FreeBSD machines, etc). And even beyond that, the draconian audit policy makes it either illegal or against company policy for many people to use in work environments and unattractive for some to use at home.
Everything people trust to be protected and identified by x509 server certs (https, pops, imaps, , etc) has a major weakness: DNS. You can have all the eliptical curve crypto, 4096bit RSA keys, and even someday quantum crypto you want, it all fails utterly if DNS is compromised or spoofed
Please explain.
SSL is designed to ensure that DNS spoofing will cause SSL authentication failure. An attacker needs to hijack the domain name and get a matching (signed, trusted) certificate for that domain name in order to spoof a secure site. If they could get such a signed certificate, all kinds of passive man-in-the-middle attacks become viable (in other words, that's not a DNS problem, it's a far more severe problem in your key management).
The pesticide king is cotton. Cotton is adapted to a wide range of uses, and it spins easily, but the environmental costs of cotton cultivation are incalculable. Cotton is grown on 3% of the earths best arable land and uses a whopping 26% of the worlds pesticides. It is a demanding crop that requires heavy irrigation and consumes more than 7% of the fertilizer used annually. It exhausts the soil, but is widely grown by developing countries desperate for a cash crop to pay international debts
On pesticides cotton is a clear loser, one of the worst crops out there.
Hemp is even more nutrient-intensive, though, which contributes heavily to soil exhaustion. And hemp requires the soil be laid bare for a period each year, making it terrible as far as soil erosion. And it requires heavy irrigation. It's really not an environmental winner.
Hemp has a natural luster and takes dyes beautifully, due to its superior absorbency."
Except it doesn't take dyes beautifully, hemp paper requires a long sitting and drying period to avoid smearing because of the low absorbency. Apparently hemp-cotton blends do have high absorbency (higher than pure cotton or hemp), however.
An acre of land will produce about 1000 pounds of primary hemp fiber, about 2 or 3 more times fiber than cotton
A favorite flawed stat of pro-hemp advocates. Only the bast fiber winds up being useable, so 75% of the primary fiber is discarded. As far as how much acreage you need to make the end-product, hemp is a loser to cotton for fabric and to pine for wood.
Fiber comes right off the plant ready to comb and use
This is a laugh. Hemp is one of the most labor-intensive plants to process for good commercial-grade fiber. This might be a partially false problem, since it's possible that with legalization (which I'm strongly in favor of) we'd see better mechanization, but we can't be sure of that.
Hemp fiber paper has many beneficial characteristics, including high tensile strength, opacity, tearing resistance, wet strength, and folding endurance.
These are all strengths, and the same properties make it great for the applications I pointed out above.
Hemp has a low lignin content, so a non-Kraft, non-chlorine bleach mill is feasible
As is this.
It's a great fiber for some applications, but it's not the environmental, economic, social cure-all people would have you believe.
It's also worth noting that most of the benefits you point out are also benefits of the more environmentally-friendly flax fiber.
Hemp is _not_ highly absorbent. Hemp paper requires special drying processes to get the ink to set without smearing. High absorbency isn't a major factor in cloth diapers. And it is very coarse relative to cotton and other alternatives.
Hemp does have a number of advantages, including durability, better rot-resistance, and great strength. It's also quite expensive as production is very labor-intensive, and use of hemp fiber is not nearly as environmentally sound as people would have you believe. For instance, while it does produce more fiber per acre than, say, a pine farm, you wind up discarding 75% of the fiber to get the good bast off the stems. So to produce the same end-user products winds up requiring far more acreage than alternative crops--and it's acreage that contributes far more to soil erosion than a wood or cotton farm. And, of course, most hemp used in the US is grown in China with all the labor issues that encompasses (though sane public policy legalizing hemp use could eliminate that problem).
That said, hemp is a good crop for some applications--tea bags, cigarette papers, canvas, rope, etc. And it's a useful mixin for strengthening other fibers in some cloths.
IIRC - Hemp is a better fibre than cotton - at least FAR easier to grow, seeing as it grows like a weed
Hemp is _not_ a better fiber than cotton for most purposes, which is why back before it was banned in 1930 there were only about 1300 acres of land cultivated for hemp in the US and only a couple thousand tons total consumption (including imports), almost all of it used for rope. (And no, Dow didn't squash hemp use to promote its new nylon; nylon at that time was used almost exclusively in pantyhose, which is a market hemp was never in).
Among other things, hemp fiber has poor absorbency (making it terrible for paper products) and is quite coarse (making it poor for most clothing uses). Hemp cellulose has no consistent grain and doesn't make for construction-grade lumber. It makes for fine canvas, rope, particle board, and passable jeans, but you absolutely wouldn't want to wear fine clothing or even T-shirts made from hemp fiber unless you're making a political statement--and even those are a hemp/cotton blend since pure hemp is really lousy for those applications..
Or you could use a completely unambiguous format: /* Changed on 30 Nov 2005 */
I tend to use ISO-8631 for filenames or other things that might be sorted, but DD Mon YYYY for things that are human-readable non-sorting.
Primarily to ensure that access in remote rural areas is available at the same cost as access in urban areas.
The definition allows for price breaks on long distance calls for low-income individuals as well, but the vast majority of that funding goes to ensuring that someone out in the middle of nowhere has dial tone, 911 access, directory assitance, operator access, touch tone, single-party service, and long-distance access at the same cost as people in urban settings.
That works okay in some situations, but there are reasonable scenarios that I outlined in my post which it won't help with.
Being able to connect to those machines from others that don't have a pre-installed trust relationship with a particular CA is also plausible (say, an admin who is on vacation needing to do some work from his parent's machine, who could list a few critical http fingerprints in his wallet alongside ssh/pgp prints).
The current situation is vastly preferrable to one where unknown certs are rejected.
My caveman ascended.
And Marvin got 13 in a row, one of every class (and he mixed up gender/race/alignment so he covered all of those too).
If the key isn't signed, it could be anyone doing location bar trickery and man-in-the-middle whatnot.
Also, this is impossible in the scenario I outlined unless the attacker can create valid keys matching your fingerprints (in which case your cryptographic hash function is inadequate and there are likely to be much more effective attacks at his disposal independent of whether you're using keys signed by a CA or not).
If you trust the root server, then you can trust anything signed by them
Not necessarily (see GPG webs of trust). But sure, if I trust a root server as an introducer then I trust anything they sign.
That still doesn't change the fact that if even if I trust (say) Verisign, I have to pay them to sign a cert for me. Whereas I can trust myself, sign my certs for internal use for free, and verify fingerprints as I connect. Even for some semipublic applications it could be a reasonable course of action to distribute a fingerprint through a secure channel rather than rely on a third party introducer (of course, this is only true if your target audience is quite savvy, and for general-purpose public sites it's absolutely the wrong thing to do).
It also doesn't help if I have a very sensitive application I might _not_ trust anyone but me.
And it also doesn't help me if all the trusted authorities refuse to sign a key for me--incredibly unlikely today, but potentially plausible down the line (say for a site strongly critical of the core Cert Authorities, or politically outspoken, or strongly religious, or whatever).
You really do need both, and eliminating self-signed certs (which is what I was objecting to) would be a very bad thing.
Imagine if you needed to go to a central authority to get ssh keys for every server you have in your office, and pay them $50 a year for each one. Why should you have to do that with http if you're willing to do careful key management in-house? Having a secure http server with a different key on every desktop is certainly a plausible scenario for some things (remote admin or whatever). Being able to connect to those machines from others that don't have a pre-installed trust relationship with a particular CA is also plausible (say, an admin who is on vacation needing to do some work from his parent's machine, who could list a few critical http fingerprints in his wallet alongside ssh/pgp prints).
The same way you do with SSH or PGP. You verify the fingerprint, which you received by some other channel secure enough for your purposes. That could be simply over the phone from someone whose CallerID and voice you recognize or could be a trusted courier with a locked case. It could even be IM if you're just testing how to set up SSL certs and don't really care if this one is secure or not since you're going to wipe it for a real one later.
People have been doing it for years.
It's not a good general purpose solution for the uneducated, but forcing people who know what they're doing to outsource key management is equally poor. Ideally the browser messages would be along the lines of SSH.
1. Warn you when the key is unknown and ask you to verify the fingerprint. Perhaps require you to enter the print (type it in) to use a self-signed key.
2. Refuse to connect if the key has changed.
Other scenarios (expired key, etc) require some thought and local policy decisions.
Nope. That's no dream. For most of a decade, the entire thing was run from Linus' INBOX. Various other kernel developers used CVS (etc.), but Linus HATES CVS. (And I don't blame him one bit.)
I'm not sure why this was flagged funny.
It was literally Linus' INBOX that ran things. He had a whole series of scripts to apply patches from the INBOX, etc. And one of the first things he made sure Larry Mcvoy did when implementing bitkeeper was have commands to send/recieve patches in a similar email format so he could use his old scripts as needed.
And he does hate CVS.