I mean, do you really want your local bank handing out RSA keyfobs to each customer just so that you can bank online with a better feeling of security? From an Ops and Support standpoint, it would be the stuff of nightmares.
You might get away with it for banking, but can you imagine every podunk blog having to do it for each of their visitors? The security people might be happy at the thought, but that would be very short-lived as they'd be at severe risk of having everyone else hang them from the nearest lamppost for being complete asses. Apart from the (reasonable) deaths of some people who have no idea about proportionality, the net effect would be to have no security at all; people will turn off HTTPS before putting up with having to use a whole array of stupid dongles and key-fobs several times a day.
Good, effective security must be easy enough from a user perspective that the users don't revolt against it. This naturally makes it somewhat weaker, but that's how it goes. To require human nature to be other than it is is intensely foolish.
The argument here is actually quite valid, Black Cabs and cab drivers have significant government license, knowledge and regulations imposed on them which are quite expensive I understand.
It sounds to me like Uber are yet another minicab (i.e., "private hire") business. There are quite a number of other such firms already operating in the UK, including within London, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them didn't already use websites and apps to allow a customer to arrange a transaction. Heck, I know of at least one firm that allows booking via website (even if that's just something you do a few minutes ahead) and an app is just a logical extension of that.
What makes Uber different other than some marketing bumf?
Oh, come on! It's gotta be worth a try. Maybe the 14 year old girls' dads will do something about it just to stop them from being pestered quite so much (on the principle of "we must do something; this is something, so we must do it"). Stranger things have happened.
Oh and that location I am talking about is about 5 minutes from a mountain biking trail, HPR launch site, and a Wholefoods.
You're also a long way from lots of other things. That's the trade-off for living in a low-density area. If you want a lot of variety, you need an urban setting (or rather by the time you've got it, you've got enough economic activity that you will have a substantial city there very soon if there isn't one already). You can tell yourself that you don't want the other things offered by a city — it might even be true — but that doesn't change the fact that you're choosing to be without them.
If you drove around in a bike/motorcycle locating empty parking spots and announcing their existence to prospective parkers (and then selling them), you would indeed be providing liquidity.
It'd be easier to provide liquidity if your brakes were slowly leaking oil. Bam! Instant liquidity, right there on site.
endless roads like LA and since even after devoting around a third of land area to roads, LA is still the most congested region in the country
Of course it's congested. It's got all those roads to fill up with cars. Get rid of those roads and people will have to deal with the consequences of living a long way from where they work and shop and study and...
You do realize that the vast majority of Europe is MUCH more densely populated than the US
So don't run lots of public transit into the backwoods. High speed train stops every 20 miles through Montana don't make sense, but then Europe's got plenty of empty too; most of northern Scandinavia is about as relevant to public transit as most of northern Canada. It's very empty up there.
More relevantly, nobody's suggesting that you need to offer the same level of services to someone far out in the farming areas as you do round a significant city. (They might want those services, but they're not going to get them.) That doesn't mean that everywhere has to have poor services; lots of the US is plenty dense enough. Saying "oh, but we don't have the population density" all the time just lets a bunch of useless government types and scummy private monopolists off the hook for no good reason.
Should this application take off (a big "if") government's only practical response is to raise the price of parking to the point that turnover is so high that you can usually find a parking spot quickly without paying somebody to leave.
They could also put strict time limits on how long a vehicle can occupy a space, no matter how much they pay, and tow and crush those cars that overstay their time significantly. That really persuades people to get on and move out of the way promptly. The shortest time I've seen it permitted for a car to park in some spots round here is 15 minutes, for spaces immediately outside a major station; it's just long enough to comfortably set someone down or collect them for taking on elsewhere (and yes, there was a separate taxi rank).
Some local businesses will hate it, particularly those that were relying on a free subsidy of parking spaces from the city instead of paying what it takes to get a private parking lot set up nearby. Sucks to be a sponging leech sometimes...
But why are they peering with them if there are better routes available?
ISPs hold a monopoly on their customers, there is no other way to get to their network.
This. It should be noted that TFA (yes, I did look through it!) stated that countries with proper competition between ISPs, such as the UK, don't have the port congestion problem. The ISPs might be trying to squeeze every last bit of bandwidth out, that's reasonable business, but the result is to keep service pretty reasonable. (That can manifest in several ways, such as low prices or good connectivity: you pays your money, you takes your pick.)
By contrast, the monopolists give shit service, know they're giving shit service, intend to continue to give shit service, and don't care what you think about it. After all, what you going to do? Switch to someone else??? Ho ho ho...
Monopolies suck. You guys need to break them up. One way would be to make it so that it's not legal for anyone owning network infrastructure to sell at anything less than wholesale type pricing for access to the infrastructure itself: it's another company that has to then sell it on to consumers as well as sorting out the peering agreements. The infrastructure owner can be highly regulated; the virtual ISPs don't need nearly so much regulation, as they're much more substitutable (lower barrier to entry without all that infrastructure), and so you can let the free market reign there just fine.
So speaks the man who has never run his own CA. It's not that hard provided you don't want to sign absolutely anyone's certificate (but just ones you know) and provided you're not trying to be trusted by major browsers by default. Not using the PKI to drive commerce and only supporting a few specific clients? You can go entirely private.
Most people log in to Google+ so rarely that they don't even realize all that Midget porn they'd been thumbs upping is plastered all over a google website with their full name, email and phone number on it.
On the plus side, it's a great way to find out how creepy all you friends and family are.
Big corps are about 0.1% of the problem big governments are. Based on megadeaths in the 20th century.
Does that mean we should stand back and let big business cause the majority of deaths in the 21st century? Is it their turn to cause mass suffering? If you answer "yes" to that, I feel that I will be morally required to oppose you, on the grounds that we should be trying to prevent such bad things from happening, no matter which large power concentration is involved.
We must also be aware that the manner of death causing by different types of organisation might be different. Only relatively rarely do we get a single incident where the actions of business cause many deaths at once (though the Bhopal incident is a cause célèbre, and the Rana Plaza event is another example of the harm that corporations can cause) yet that doesn't mean that enormous problems are not caused. For example, the current obesity epidemic is almost certainly due to corporate action (even if not intentional corporate action) as it is far too transnational to be reasonably caused by the action of a single government, and is too unlikely to be something that a government would actively seek. How many deaths has it caused? How much suffering? (I have no hard figures to hand here.)
Does spreading the deaths out over time in a constant trickle (one here, one there) make them better than single spectacular events? If so, why?
Was the mechanism to prevent a number from coming up part of the official requirements, with a list of blocked numbers that is subject to audit and a trail including which officer gave the order to put a particular block in? If so, "deep cover" is plausible. If it's just something on the quiet though, it smells far worse.
The Soviet Union got in the habit of centralised plan/command economies due to the civil wars that happened immediately after the (second) revolution in 1917. It is arguably not clear therefore that such mechanisms are the way that communism must be. (I wouldn't count the majority of other communist states that existed in Europe in the 20th century at all, as the political/economic system there was mostly about being Russian vassals. The real exception there is Yugoslavia, and that was a timebomb after the death of Tito.)
A more serious criticism against communism is that it is excessively idealistic and fails to account for high-functioning psychopaths (you know, the CEO/oligarch types) sufficiently well. Which isn't to say that capitalism is hugely better, either, but at least there it tries to lay a path open so that what benefits them can benefit everyone else too. Relying on appeals to someone's better nature though, that truly won't work.
The United States Federal Government was obstinately set up to minimize the aforementioned trend, but several big mistakes (Reynolds v. Sims and the 17th Amendment top the list) along the way and 200 years of mission creep have undermined most of the protections put in place.
You're claiming that Reynolds v. Sims was a bad decision? Without it, you could have stunning levels of effective disenfranchisement; all the party in power would need to do is to allocate all the strongholds of their opponents to as few seats as they could get away with (preferably one!) and split the remaining ones among the areas that they dominate, rapidly leading to an effective, perpetual one party state with no hope of ever changing it.
Any functioning representative democracy has to have something similar in place to limit the levels of unfairness. It might not stop shenanigans, but it limits things quite a lot. If you want to argue against it, please explain on what grounds you believe it to be a problem, and why what you would replace it with would not be worse.
Why can't we have a pipeline that brings fresh water, instead of oil?
Just make it illegal to use water for fracking and agriculture while there's a drought on and you'll have plenty of water for people to drink. Oh, you really want the water to support those industries? Let industry pay for what it costs to get it if they rely on it so much.
The technology sufficient to divert an asteroid, especially with limited warning(which precludes some of the subtler 'attach an ion drive or give it a slow shove with a laser' type schemes), is probably pretty punchy, possibly 'basically an ICBM but better at escaping earth's gravity well' punchy.
Not if you detect it far enough out. If you've got plenty of time, even a small force (e.g., from laser ablation) is quite enough to divert an asteroid well away from the Earth; it's amazing what a small force applied over a long time can do, especially if you've got negligible friction.
Like everyone else they don't know if anything was taken. And frankly, Heatbleed is probably the least of the security issues Healthcare.gov has... I'd be way more worried about backbend systems, and then it doesn't matter what your password is.
As I understand it, the majority of the implementation of healthcare.gov is Java. Java's SSL implementation doesn't have the heartbleed bug at all (and implementing this bug would actually take a lot more work than doing it right). If there's a problem, it's most likely in a front-end load balancer; I don't know if you'd see a lot of user credentials in that case, as the damage wouldn't be in systems that handle client authentication.
The database(s) might be affected too, but you probably can't reach them from a normal system; the heavily firewalled approach is a favorite of Big Software Contractors and is actually right in this case. I suppose if they were affected, processing the update to them (carefully as you don't want to lose data!) would count as preventative treatment while still properly supporting the assertion that no real damage was done.
What a lot of brands I'd never heard of. Some of them have names that are confusingly similar to ones I've encountered, but not one is actually a known brand to me.
But at least some of the things are aged properly in the time between the bottle being filled and it leaving the plant. I mean, it's gotta be all of a few minutes!
Lecturing is an ineffective way to teach because most people cannot pay attention to and retain a traditional lecture.
That's why students are told to take notes. That's why students are told to study outside lectures; tutorials and — where appropriate for the course — practical sessions in labs reinforce the lecture. You don't learn by just listening to someone, but it is part of how you learn.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, do you really want your local bank handing out RSA keyfobs to each customer just so that you can bank online with a better feeling of security? From an Ops and Support standpoint, it would be the stuff of nightmares.
You might get away with it for banking, but can you imagine every podunk blog having to do it for each of their visitors? The security people might be happy at the thought, but that would be very short-lived as they'd be at severe risk of having everyone else hang them from the nearest lamppost for being complete asses. Apart from the (reasonable) deaths of some people who have no idea about proportionality, the net effect would be to have no security at all; people will turn off HTTPS before putting up with having to use a whole array of stupid dongles and key-fobs several times a day.
Good, effective security must be easy enough from a user perspective that the users don't revolt against it. This naturally makes it somewhat weaker, but that's how it goes. To require human nature to be other than it is is intensely foolish.
Well, no....it won't be a Lamborghini really, but it will look just like one, we promise!
You are aware that Lamborghini make tractors too? You know, the things used on farms?
The argument here is actually quite valid, Black Cabs and cab drivers have significant government license, knowledge and regulations imposed on them which are quite expensive I understand.
It sounds to me like Uber are yet another minicab (i.e., "private hire") business. There are quite a number of other such firms already operating in the UK, including within London, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them didn't already use websites and apps to allow a customer to arrange a transaction. Heck, I know of at least one firm that allows booking via website (even if that's just something you do a few minutes ahead) and an app is just a logical extension of that.
What makes Uber different other than some marketing bumf?
Oh, come on! It's gotta be worth a try. Maybe the 14 year old girls' dads will do something about it just to stop them from being pestered quite so much (on the principle of "we must do something; this is something, so we must do it"). Stranger things have happened.
Oh and that location I am talking about is about 5 minutes from a mountain biking trail, HPR launch site, and a Wholefoods.
You're also a long way from lots of other things. That's the trade-off for living in a low-density area. If you want a lot of variety, you need an urban setting (or rather by the time you've got it, you've got enough economic activity that you will have a substantial city there very soon if there isn't one already). You can tell yourself that you don't want the other things offered by a city — it might even be true — but that doesn't change the fact that you're choosing to be without them.
If you drove around in a bike/motorcycle locating empty parking spots and announcing their existence to prospective parkers (and then selling them), you would indeed be providing liquidity.
It'd be easier to provide liquidity if your brakes were slowly leaking oil. Bam! Instant liquidity, right there on site.
endless roads like LA and since even after devoting around a third of land area to roads, LA is still the most congested region in the country
Of course it's congested. It's got all those roads to fill up with cars. Get rid of those roads and people will have to deal with the consequences of living a long way from where they work and shop and study and ...
You do realize that the vast majority of Europe is MUCH more densely populated than the US
So don't run lots of public transit into the backwoods. High speed train stops every 20 miles through Montana don't make sense, but then Europe's got plenty of empty too; most of northern Scandinavia is about as relevant to public transit as most of northern Canada. It's very empty up there.
More relevantly, nobody's suggesting that you need to offer the same level of services to someone far out in the farming areas as you do round a significant city. (They might want those services, but they're not going to get them.) That doesn't mean that everywhere has to have poor services; lots of the US is plenty dense enough. Saying "oh, but we don't have the population density" all the time just lets a bunch of useless government types and scummy private monopolists off the hook for no good reason.
Should this application take off (a big "if") government's only practical response is to raise the price of parking to the point that turnover is so high that you can usually find a parking spot quickly without paying somebody to leave.
They could also put strict time limits on how long a vehicle can occupy a space, no matter how much they pay, and tow and crush those cars that overstay their time significantly. That really persuades people to get on and move out of the way promptly. The shortest time I've seen it permitted for a car to park in some spots round here is 15 minutes, for spaces immediately outside a major station; it's just long enough to comfortably set someone down or collect them for taking on elsewhere (and yes, there was a separate taxi rank).
Some local businesses will hate it, particularly those that were relying on a free subsidy of parking spaces from the city instead of paying what it takes to get a private parking lot set up nearby. Sucks to be a sponging leech sometimes...
But why are they peering with them if there are better routes available?
ISPs hold a monopoly on their customers, there is no other way to get to their network.
This. It should be noted that TFA (yes, I did look through it!) stated that countries with proper competition between ISPs, such as the UK, don't have the port congestion problem. The ISPs might be trying to squeeze every last bit of bandwidth out, that's reasonable business, but the result is to keep service pretty reasonable. (That can manifest in several ways, such as low prices or good connectivity: you pays your money, you takes your pick.)
By contrast, the monopolists give shit service, know they're giving shit service, intend to continue to give shit service, and don't care what you think about it. After all, what you going to do? Switch to someone else??? Ho ho ho...
Monopolies suck. You guys need to break them up. One way would be to make it so that it's not legal for anyone owning network infrastructure to sell at anything less than wholesale type pricing for access to the infrastructure itself: it's another company that has to then sell it on to consumers as well as sorting out the peering agreements. The infrastructure owner can be highly regulated; the virtual ISPs don't need nearly so much regulation, as they're much more substitutable (lower barrier to entry without all that infrastructure), and so you can let the free market reign there just fine.
If BitKeeper had chosen to not be dicks
I see you haven't met Larry McVoy.
"Which CA can be trusted?" (none)
So speaks the man who has never run his own CA. It's not that hard provided you don't want to sign absolutely anyone's certificate (but just ones you know) and provided you're not trying to be trusted by major browsers by default. Not using the PKI to drive commerce and only supporting a few specific clients? You can go entirely private.
Most people log in to Google+ so rarely that they don't even realize all that Midget porn they'd been thumbs upping is plastered all over a google website with their full name, email and phone number on it.
On the plus side, it's a great way to find out how creepy all you friends and family are.
Big corps are about 0.1% of the problem big governments are. Based on megadeaths in the 20th century.
Does that mean we should stand back and let big business cause the majority of deaths in the 21st century? Is it their turn to cause mass suffering? If you answer "yes" to that, I feel that I will be morally required to oppose you, on the grounds that we should be trying to prevent such bad things from happening, no matter which large power concentration is involved.
We must also be aware that the manner of death causing by different types of organisation might be different. Only relatively rarely do we get a single incident where the actions of business cause many deaths at once (though the Bhopal incident is a cause célèbre, and the Rana Plaza event is another example of the harm that corporations can cause) yet that doesn't mean that enormous problems are not caused. For example, the current obesity epidemic is almost certainly due to corporate action (even if not intentional corporate action) as it is far too transnational to be reasonably caused by the action of a single government, and is too unlikely to be something that a government would actively seek. How many deaths has it caused? How much suffering? (I have no hard figures to hand here.)
Does spreading the deaths out over time in a constant trickle (one here, one there) make them better than single spectacular events? If so, why?
Was the mechanism to prevent a number from coming up part of the official requirements, with a list of blocked numbers that is subject to audit and a trail including which officer gave the order to put a particular block in? If so, "deep cover" is plausible. If it's just something on the quiet though, it smells far worse.
The Soviet Union got in the habit of centralised plan/command economies due to the civil wars that happened immediately after the (second) revolution in 1917. It is arguably not clear therefore that such mechanisms are the way that communism must be. (I wouldn't count the majority of other communist states that existed in Europe in the 20th century at all, as the political/economic system there was mostly about being Russian vassals. The real exception there is Yugoslavia, and that was a timebomb after the death of Tito.)
A more serious criticism against communism is that it is excessively idealistic and fails to account for high-functioning psychopaths (you know, the CEO/oligarch types) sufficiently well. Which isn't to say that capitalism is hugely better, either, but at least there it tries to lay a path open so that what benefits them can benefit everyone else too. Relying on appeals to someone's better nature though, that truly won't work.
Former Soviet Union reconstituting. Putin saying collapse of Soviet Union mistake. Yeah I think he used the term correctly.
Are they going to call it the Russian Empire this time round?
You want them shipped to Europe?
Speaking as a European, we do not want PETA shipped over here; we've got enough of those nuts already.
Oh, you're talking about horses? Are they food-grade horses?
The United States Federal Government was obstinately set up to minimize the aforementioned trend, but several big mistakes (Reynolds v. Sims and the 17th Amendment top the list) along the way and 200 years of mission creep have undermined most of the protections put in place.
You're claiming that Reynolds v. Sims was a bad decision? Without it, you could have stunning levels of effective disenfranchisement; all the party in power would need to do is to allocate all the strongholds of their opponents to as few seats as they could get away with (preferably one!) and split the remaining ones among the areas that they dominate, rapidly leading to an effective, perpetual one party state with no hope of ever changing it.
Any functioning representative democracy has to have something similar in place to limit the levels of unfairness. It might not stop shenanigans, but it limits things quite a lot. If you want to argue against it, please explain on what grounds you believe it to be a problem, and why what you would replace it with would not be worse.
Why can't we have a pipeline that brings fresh water, instead of oil?
Just make it illegal to use water for fracking and agriculture while there's a drought on and you'll have plenty of water for people to drink. Oh, you really want the water to support those industries? Let industry pay for what it costs to get it if they rely on it so much.
The technology sufficient to divert an asteroid, especially with limited warning(which precludes some of the subtler 'attach an ion drive or give it a slow shove with a laser' type schemes), is probably pretty punchy, possibly 'basically an ICBM but better at escaping earth's gravity well' punchy.
Not if you detect it far enough out. If you've got plenty of time, even a small force (e.g., from laser ablation) is quite enough to divert an asteroid well away from the Earth; it's amazing what a small force applied over a long time can do, especially if you've got negligible friction.
Like everyone else they don't know if anything was taken. And frankly, Heatbleed is probably the least of the security issues Healthcare.gov has... I'd be way more worried about backbend systems, and then it doesn't matter what your password is.
As I understand it, the majority of the implementation of healthcare.gov is Java. Java's SSL implementation doesn't have the heartbleed bug at all (and implementing this bug would actually take a lot more work than doing it right). If there's a problem, it's most likely in a front-end load balancer; I don't know if you'd see a lot of user credentials in that case, as the damage wouldn't be in systems that handle client authentication.
The database(s) might be affected too, but you probably can't reach them from a normal system; the heavily firewalled approach is a favorite of Big Software Contractors and is actually right in this case. I suppose if they were affected, processing the update to them (carefully as you don't want to lose data!) would count as preventative treatment while still properly supporting the assertion that no real damage was done.
As if food isn't going to be a problem in Europe, where the food and books and gas are far more expensive...
Academic books aren't such a problem; the US has more of a racket going there.
The same ethyl alcohol is used for vodka, gin, rum, scotch, bourbon, brandy, tequila, Canadian whiskies, and liqueurs. MGP also sells some ethyl alcohol for fuel use, although for them it's a sideline, not their main business.
What a lot of brands I'd never heard of. Some of them have names that are confusingly similar to ones I've encountered, but not one is actually a known brand to me.
But at least some of the things are aged properly in the time between the bottle being filled and it leaving the plant. I mean, it's gotta be all of a few minutes!
Lecturing is an ineffective way to teach because most people cannot pay attention to and retain a traditional lecture.
That's why students are told to take notes. That's why students are told to study outside lectures; tutorials and — where appropriate for the course — practical sessions in labs reinforce the lecture. You don't learn by just listening to someone, but it is part of how you learn.