It's less about punishment and more about encouraging low-risk behavior. Why should those who choose low-risk behaviors subsidize those who choose high-risk behavior? The key here is that premiums should be based on the risk associated with the choices one makes rather than simply their circumstances.
The difference is that high-risk driving is a choice that one can make each day. On the other hand, most high-risk health conditions are not something that someone can fix instantly by changing their behavior. Now, there are indeed some high-risk health conditions that are a result of choice, such as smoking or unhealthy eating habits...but even with those, one can stop smoking, but there's a significant amount of damage that's already done that makes that person be a higher risk. If there's a way to adjust one's insurance premium based on the high-risk choices they make, it becomes more fair for everyone and helps to discourage high-risk choices.
If you can synchronize arrivals with departures at the same (or a nearby) station, energy regenerated through braking can be immediately used to power the acceleration of another train. If it is not synchronized, the power is wasted (unless they have batteries or some other power cache, which would surely introduce its own inefficiencies).
I once heard a story (though unfortunately I have no references--it may very well be an urban legend) that the Vancouver SkyTrain continued operating through a power outage thanks to (a) its very efficient linear induction motor propulsion & braking, (b) operating at a reduced speed (to minimize the impact of wind resistance), (c) supplementary power from backup generators, and (d) synchronized arrivals and departures from stations in conjunction with regenerative braking. The synchronization could be done precisely and programatically because it is a fully-automated system.
A couple years ago I wrote a paper for SANS [PDF] about a similar technique I used to fight recurring problems with zero-day attacks. This technique could be modified somewhat for the needs of an ISP. For example, instead of moving them onto a quarantine VLAN, the redirect rule could be created on a per-IP-address basis. It could present the page to a user informing them of their problem, and upon user acknowledgement, it could drop a cookie in their browser that would allow them to surf uninterrupted from that host from some period of time (after which it would remind them again). That way, every user on every computer behind that IP address would be able to see that there is likely an infected system on their network.
What we really need is a tax shift. Increase taxes on the consumption of natural resources while decreasing the taxes on labor. Given the example most of us face in technology, this means more people could be hired to write more effecient code rather than just throwing more hardware and power at the problem. The way it is today, it's horribly difficult to hire a new head; instead, managers generally opt to buy more hardware. (See http://www.sightline.org/research/taxes for more on this idea.)
Assuming that clients are on a switched network, move the infected systems to a quarantine VLAN whose gateway IP is the same as the net they came from, but whose outbound requests are NAT'd instead of routed.
Then, use IPTABLES on the gateway to redirect any request on port 80 to a page that says, "You're infected--clean your system!" Maybe even provide them access to the tools necessary to clean their system via that same webpage.
Instead of installing a GPS in each car, why not install a device that determines the distance traveled based on the number of revolutions of the wheel multiplied by its circumference?
(Oh, man--I should have gotten a patent for that idea instead of posting it on slashdot...!)
This "free" deal has been advertised in Slashdot banners for months now! I ordered mine when I first saw the offer (costs $10 for shipping), and it's sitting here on my bookshelf (unopened). I don't want to go making conspiracy theories about companies paying for advertisements disguised as stories, as it would be a shame for Slashdot to take a bribe from Microsoft like that.
Anyway, back to the product... the picture on its box cleary tries to illustrate Unix as confusing and obfuscated. It looks like they've written some nonsensical script in ksh, which starts like this:
I would like to be able to share proc, mem, disk, and net resources across multiple machines (as is partially implemented in openMosix) AND run multiple instances of Linux on a single system (as in User-mode Linux). These two features combined would provide the ultimate solution in hardware resource flexibility and scalability in large server deployments. It looks like VMware Server provides similar functionality, but with cross-platform capabilities and at a cost of over $1500 per processor.
Real easy to determine if it's an inkjet print out: lick your finger and smear it on the paper. If it smears, it's a fake.
(Of course, you wouldn't want to put your finger back in your mouth after you smear it on that stranger's twenty, but there's simple solutions to that.)
As long as no residential units are more than 500 cable feet from the phone closet, HPNA 1.1 concentrators are the way to go (search google for 'HPNA concentrator'). The consumer hardware can be acquired for cheap; I've bought PCI HPNA 2.0 cards for $12 (searcn buy.com for 'phoneline')--and yes, I hear they work fine under Linux.
For new condo construction, stick with CAT5e (or CAT6). Fiber converters are clumsy, expensive, and unnecessary for consumer applications. If you want to add extras, go for a centralized patch panel in each unit so that residents can install a hub/switch/whatever.
As for the uplink, you'll probably want a business DSL contract (since that's sure to be cheaper than a T1) and make sure that they allow reselling of bandwidth. Alternatively, find someone who can supply you with bandwidth wirelessly. Make sure you establish a service level agreement with your ISP, especially if you are charging residents for the service.
I put together a similar plan for the 200-unit condo building I recently lived in, but the homeowners board wasn't very interested--probably because they were recently stung by a similar venture which burned thru about $50M in 2 years under the name 'Reflex Communications' before leaving their customers in the cold--so you can imagine that they were quite skeptical of a 20-something walking in the door saying he could do it for relatively cheap. Reflex supplied DSL-like service internally using Tut Systems equipment, and then used a wireless connection (probably an early form of 802.11) to link to a tall building several blocks away. They grew too fast, and seemed to have a knack for using the most expensive equipment they could find. Furthermore, I think they should have moved more quickly towards providing a ubiquitous always-on service instead of targeting the sexy high-bandwidth applications (like video-on-demand). For many homeowners boards, the thought of letting a unlicensed/unbonded hacker poke around in their phone closet is a little scary.
There's still more absentees to be counted. The counts from the next batch will come out on Thursday at 4pm, and then they'll be done counting on Tuesday at 5pm.
For more information about the Seattle Monorail Project, see:
I must point out that you've confusing several separate rail projects that are concurrently happening in Seattle.
There was a vote for a 40-mile monorail system in Nov 1997. It passed with a 53% vote, but allocated no money. The intention was that the private sector would step forward to finance it. The city scoffed. And as a result, so did the private sector. The city council only gave $200,000 to fund a one-year study. They stretched the funds over two years before the initiative was dissolved by the city council.
Citizens returned in 2000 with I-53, gathering 20,000 signatures in just 2 months! (About 1000 of those signatures were gathered by yours truly.) The initiative made it on the Nov 2000 ballot and passed by 56% with 148,000 votes--more than any other elected official in Seattle's history. I-53 reserved $6 million and two years to plan a monorail system.
This plan is now being drafted, and includes 14 miles from Ballard to Downtown to West Seattle. The plan will be on the ballot in Nov 2002. The plan is described at http://www.elevated.org. Campaign info can be found at http://www.riseaboveitall.org.
(On a separate note, the trains that have been delivered are for Sound Transit's "Sounder" commuter rail project. The excess trains have since been leased out at-cost to other transit agencies around the country. These trains are not monorails, and are govered by a completely separate agency. Sound Transit is also the organization responsible for the light rail plan.)
berniecase is right-on. I have a few additions and clarifications...
The current monorail is profitable for its private operating company (Railsafe, aka Seattle Monorail Services), on top of contributing $600,000+ each year to the city's general fund. And it isn't automated--humans are paid to drive the trains and sell the tickets. The fare is the same as an off-peak bus fare, $1.25 (although bus transfers aren't currently valid), and gets you there in 90 seconds, and carries about 2.5M passengers each year (half of which are during special events, such as Bumbershoot, Bite of Seattle, and Sonics games, removing a lot of cars from the streets around the Seattle Center).
By definition, operational profit does not include capital costs. For more information on this, see the paper on O&M costs.
how about just getting more buses?
We have lots of busses. But busses get stuck in traffic. They aren't frequent (especially during off-hours). And they're expensive to operate.
Our busses are currently subsidized by 3:1--that is, for every $1.50 fare, the taxpayers are footing another $4.50. The monorail, while having a high capital cost, will likely not require an operational subsidy. This is already the case for several auitomated elevated systems, such as Seattle's 40-year old monorail (which was built in 10 months and paid for its construction in 8 months, and is manually operated today at a profit, or the Tokyo Monorail or Vancouver Skytrain (both of which are automated.)
And you bet it's a whole lot cheaper to build a monorail guideway than to build 56 lane miles of roadway (14 miles of two lanes each direction), especially in an urban environment like Seattle.
This issue has been simmering in Seattle for 40 years. In the last 4 years, it's come to a boil. This November, the voters will get to choose.
There's another organization working on that. The light rail system was approved by voters in 1996, and is scheduled for completion in 2009 (although only 14 for the price of the 21 miles apporoved by voters). The problem with the tunnel is that the rails weren't installed with proper insulation and grounding, so they have to close the tunnel for two years while the do the retrofitting. Meanwhile, dozens of busses will be pushed back onto surface streets during and after the completion of the line. Fortunately, the monorail should be operational before they take the tunnel out of service.
The monorail line will be run by a separate agency, but transfers between the two lines will be simple. The light rail line and monorail line will complement each other.
We're working on plans to build an expanded monorail system in Seattle. True, compared to Kim's backyard monorail, it's a little longer (14 miles) and a little pricier ($970M-$1.7B), but it'll haul about 60,000 people per day, and likely turn an operational profit. And it's probably the only transit system in the country created by a citizens' initiative...yes, that's right, no monorail salesman or catchy jingle needed--just a good grassroots campaign! For more info, visit The Elevated Transportation Company. The plan goes to the voters November 2002.
For info on the campaign (which I'm helping out with--yes, this is a shameless plug), visit Rise Above It All
My prof at UW in my new media communications class (CMU 300) stated that listening in to a "wireless" (PCS or cell) conversation is legal--supposedly because it traverses public airwaves. (Fortunately, most PCS services are encrypted.) On the other hand, listening in to a home "cordless" phone conversation is illegal, because it constitutes a tap on a wire line connection.
Slashdot Mirror
It's less about punishment and more about encouraging low-risk behavior. Why should those who choose low-risk behaviors subsidize those who choose high-risk behavior? The key here is that premiums should be based on the risk associated with the choices one makes rather than simply their circumstances.
The difference is that high-risk driving is a choice that one can make each day. On the other hand, most high-risk health conditions are not something that someone can fix instantly by changing their behavior. Now, there are indeed some high-risk health conditions that are a result of choice, such as smoking or unhealthy eating habits...but even with those, one can stop smoking, but there's a significant amount of damage that's already done that makes that person be a higher risk. If there's a way to adjust one's insurance premium based on the high-risk choices they make, it becomes more fair for everyone and helps to discourage high-risk choices.
I expect those are just the spoken names and that the commands will still be single words, similar to:
"GNU awk" -> gawk
"enhanced grep" -> egrep
Done! It's called "awk". Just set the RS and FS fields as appropriate. :P
If you can synchronize arrivals with departures at the same (or a nearby) station, energy regenerated through braking can be immediately used to power the acceleration of another train. If it is not synchronized, the power is wasted (unless they have batteries or some other power cache, which would surely introduce its own inefficiencies).
I once heard a story (though unfortunately I have no references--it may very well be an urban legend) that the Vancouver SkyTrain continued operating through a power outage thanks to (a) its very efficient linear induction motor propulsion & braking, (b) operating at a reduced speed (to minimize the impact of wind resistance), (c) supplementary power from backup generators, and (d) synchronized arrivals and departures from stations in conjunction with regenerative braking. The synchronization could be done precisely and programatically because it is a fully-automated system.
Slightly off-topic, but isn't it time to replace the image of borgified-Gates with an image of borgified-Ballmer?
"The Tunnel is a horror movie about what the MPAA does to people who download movies over bittorrent."
...did any of them actually answer in the form of a question?
A couple years ago I wrote a paper for SANS [PDF] about a similar technique I used to fight recurring problems with zero-day attacks. This technique could be modified somewhat for the needs of an ISP. For example, instead of moving them onto a quarantine VLAN, the redirect rule could be created on a per-IP-address basis. It could present the page to a user informing them of their problem, and upon user acknowledgement, it could drop a cookie in their browser that would allow them to surf uninterrupted from that host from some period of time (after which it would remind them again). That way, every user on every computer behind that IP address would be able to see that there is likely an infected system on their network.
What we really need is a tax shift. Increase taxes on the consumption of natural resources while decreasing the taxes on labor. Given the example most of us face in technology, this means more people could be hired to write more effecient code rather than just throwing more hardware and power at the problem. The way it is today, it's horribly difficult to hire a new head; instead, managers generally opt to buy more hardware. (See http://www.sightline.org/research/taxes for more on this idea.)
Assuming that clients are on a switched network, move the infected systems to a quarantine VLAN whose gateway IP is the same as the net they came from, but whose outbound requests are NAT'd instead of routed.
Then, use IPTABLES on the gateway to redirect any request on port 80 to a page that says, "You're infected--clean your system!" Maybe even provide them access to the tools necessary to clean their system via that same webpage.
Instead of installing a GPS in each car, why not install a device that determines the distance traveled based on the number of revolutions of the wheel multiplied by its circumference?
(Oh, man--I should have gotten a patent for that idea instead of posting it on slashdot...!)
Anyway, back to the product... the picture on its box cleary tries to illustrate Unix as confusing and obfuscated. It looks like they've written some nonsensical script in ksh, which starts like this:
It's like they want us to say, "...yeah, I'm glad that we're moving away from this confusing UNIX stuff. Windows is so much easier."So now I can run awk and csh in Windows? Couldn't I already do that with cygwin?
Print the WEP key on the receipt, and change it daily.
I would like to be able to share proc, mem, disk, and net resources across multiple machines (as is partially implemented in openMosix) AND run multiple instances of Linux on a single system (as in User-mode Linux). These two features combined would provide the ultimate solution in hardware resource flexibility and scalability in large server deployments. It looks like VMware Server provides similar functionality, but with cross-platform capabilities and at a cost of over $1500 per processor.
Real easy to determine if it's an inkjet print out: lick your finger and smear it on the paper. If it smears, it's a fake.
(Of course, you wouldn't want to put your finger back in your mouth after you smear it on that stranger's twenty, but there's simple solutions to that.)
As long as no residential units are more than 500 cable feet from the phone closet, HPNA 1.1 concentrators are the way to go (search google for 'HPNA concentrator'). The consumer hardware can be acquired for cheap; I've bought PCI HPNA 2.0 cards for $12 (searcn buy.com for 'phoneline')--and yes, I hear they work fine under Linux.
For new condo construction, stick with CAT5e (or CAT6). Fiber converters are clumsy, expensive, and unnecessary for consumer applications. If you want to add extras, go for a centralized patch panel in each unit so that residents can install a hub/switch/whatever.
As for the uplink, you'll probably want a business DSL contract (since that's sure to be cheaper than a T1) and make sure that they allow reselling of bandwidth. Alternatively, find someone who can supply you with bandwidth wirelessly. Make sure you establish a service level agreement with your ISP, especially if you are charging residents for the service.
I put together a similar plan for the 200-unit condo building I recently lived in, but the homeowners board wasn't very interested--probably because they were recently stung by a similar venture which burned thru about $50M in 2 years under the name 'Reflex Communications' before leaving their customers in the cold--so you can imagine that they were quite skeptical of a 20-something walking in the door saying he could do it for relatively cheap. Reflex supplied DSL-like service internally using Tut Systems equipment, and then used a wireless connection (probably an early form of 802.11) to link to a tall building several blocks away. They grew too fast, and seemed to have a knack for using the most expensive equipment they could find. Furthermore, I think they should have moved more quickly towards providing a ubiquitous always-on service instead of targeting the sexy high-bandwidth applications (like video-on-demand). For many homeowners boards, the thought of letting a unlicensed/unbonded hacker poke around in their phone closet is a little scary.
There's still more absentees to be counted. The counts from the next batch will come out on Thursday at 4pm, and then they'll be done counting on Tuesday at 5pm.
For more information about the Seattle Monorail Project, see:
Elevated Transportation Company
-AND-
Monorail YES!
I've already chewed off my nails and pulled out my hair...the anticipation is killing me...
I must point out that you've confusing several separate rail projects that are concurrently happening in Seattle.
There was a vote for a 40-mile monorail system in Nov 1997. It passed with a 53% vote, but allocated no money. The intention was that the private sector would step forward to finance it. The city scoffed. And as a result, so did the private sector. The city council only gave $200,000 to fund a one-year study. They stretched the funds over two years before the initiative was dissolved by the city council.
Citizens returned in 2000 with I-53, gathering 20,000 signatures in just 2 months! (About 1000 of those signatures were gathered by yours truly.) The initiative made it on the Nov 2000 ballot and passed by 56% with 148,000 votes--more than any other elected official in Seattle's history. I-53 reserved $6 million and two years to plan a monorail system.
This plan is now being drafted, and includes 14 miles from Ballard to Downtown to West Seattle. The plan will be on the ballot in Nov 2002. The plan is described at http://www.elevated.org. Campaign info can be found at http://www.riseaboveitall.org.
(On a separate note, the trains that have been delivered are for Sound Transit's "Sounder" commuter rail project. The excess trains have since been leased out at-cost to other transit agencies around the country. These trains are not monorails, and are govered by a completely separate agency. Sound Transit is also the organization responsible for the light rail plan.)
berniecase is right-on. I have a few additions and clarifications...
The current monorail is profitable for its private operating company (Railsafe, aka Seattle Monorail Services), on top of contributing $600,000+ each year to the city's general fund. And it isn't automated--humans are paid to drive the trains and sell the tickets. The fare is the same as an off-peak bus fare, $1.25 (although bus transfers aren't currently valid), and gets you there in 90 seconds, and carries about 2.5M passengers each year (half of which are during special events, such as Bumbershoot, Bite of Seattle, and Sonics games, removing a lot of cars from the streets around the Seattle Center).
By definition, operational profit does not include capital costs. For more information on this, see the paper on O&M costs.
how about just getting more buses?
We have lots of busses. But busses get stuck in traffic. They aren't frequent (especially during off-hours). And they're expensive to operate.
Our busses are currently subsidized by 3:1--that is, for every $1.50 fare, the taxpayers are footing another $4.50. The monorail, while having a high capital cost, will likely not require an operational subsidy. This is already the case for several auitomated elevated systems, such as Seattle's 40-year old monorail (which was built in 10 months and paid for its construction in 8 months, and is manually operated today at a profit, or the Tokyo Monorail or Vancouver Skytrain (both of which are automated.)
And you bet it's a whole lot cheaper to build a monorail guideway than to build 56 lane miles of roadway (14 miles of two lanes each direction), especially in an urban environment like Seattle.
This issue has been simmering in Seattle for 40 years. In the last 4 years, it's come to a boil. This November, the voters will get to choose.
There's another organization working on that. The light rail system was approved by voters in 1996, and is scheduled for completion in 2009 (although only 14 for the price of the 21 miles apporoved by voters). The problem with the tunnel is that the rails weren't installed with proper insulation and grounding, so they have to close the tunnel for two years while the do the retrofitting. Meanwhile, dozens of busses will be pushed back onto surface streets during and after the completion of the line. Fortunately, the monorail should be operational before they take the tunnel out of service.
The monorail line will be run by a separate agency, but transfers between the two lines will be simple. The light rail line and monorail line will complement each other.
We're working on plans to build an expanded monorail system in Seattle. True, compared to Kim's backyard monorail, it's a little longer (14 miles) and a little pricier ($970M-$1.7B), but it'll haul about 60,000 people per day, and likely turn an operational profit. And it's probably the only transit system in the country created by a citizens' initiative...yes, that's right, no monorail salesman or catchy jingle needed--just a good grassroots campaign! For more info, visit The Elevated Transportation Company. The plan goes to the voters November 2002.
For info on the campaign (which I'm helping out with--yes, this is a shameless plug), visit Rise Above It All
We still need more pay phones with RJ-11 jacks for modems. (Or even better, RJ-45 for ethernet!)
My prof at UW in my new media communications class (CMU 300) stated that listening in to a "wireless" (PCS or cell) conversation is legal--supposedly because it traverses public airwaves. (Fortunately, most PCS services are encrypted.) On the other hand, listening in to a home "cordless" phone conversation is illegal, because it constitutes a tap on a wire line connection.