Isn't that just a bug in Cisco's IOS software? CEF should, IMO, start replacing lease-used routes(replacing the previously made blaster-inspired 1 use routes) with the new routes when it maxes its memory.
"They don't even specify the margin of error of their predictions. I guess that would be too much of a liability."
Correct me if I am wrong, but how would it be anything but 100% margin of error. Literally, they look at the market from a non-native perspective and bullshit a guess. Some are better than others, but still.
But we need to put a safety precaution in there, so they can't go crazy... Maybe if we power them soley by solar panels, that would keep them under control... right?
As mentioned in another post, OpenBSD has pf, a firewall that supports OS fingerprinting. I don't know if windows can accurately be 'spoofed' or how pf works, but the system does exist.
I wonder if we could add a module to spamassassin?
What US law would you like to apply to a Chinese email server admin?
You think Congress passing a law is going to make it at all enforcable in countries that feel free to tell Americans where they can shove it?
Legality is a joke when enforcing something like spam on the internet. If you get China to crack down, which you won't, then the 25lb servers just get shipped to India, Pakistan, russia, east europe, sout america... Hell. Anywhere.
Furthermore, some now do, and more will, use bot networks of rooted Windows machines as proxy slaves to spam email, creating a virtual barrier from the real bad guy.
hardly any of their 'workforce' are white colar. The infrastructure and core, sure, but the real numbers(delivery and on the distrobution hub floor) are all blue colar types.
Plus, FedEx does a lot of corporate delivery and whatnot, so they are busy 24/7
http://www.acquisitionx.com/ - acquistion, the best p2p client I have seen to date. It runs on top of (i believe) the limewire core, apparently, but speed is top notch. it is a native mac gui, acts very native, not some ported software, and has very good speeds. I have had some files that were bogus, less than probably.5% quite honestly. Good software, very nice feel and reliability.
absolutely NO pop-ups, ads or wonky behavior. Plus, since it is mac only, you can pretty much download whatever results pop up, since any corrupt windows-virus-files won't work.
NOTE: No, I am not affiliated with acquisition. I am an EXTREMELY happy user that has paid for the option shareware fee. Worth the money to support these guys.
It is all a matter of degrees. How sure do you want your privacy and anonymity? Hmm?
We have WASTE, sure. It works great for files on small networks. I know, I was one of the (for lack of a better term) instigators that formed one of the largest(to my knowledge and to the ability of waste) networks. It was nice, actually. If WASTE could interpret/intercept websites the way Freenet does, we would have something, but it is still too clumsy and feature-incomplete, with no real usable os x port to my knowledge. Besides, the routing protocol doesn't support super-peers or similar, so you really just have a single flat mesh, rather than a gnuetella hierarchical mesh that scales much, much, MUCH better. The key sharing was a pain in the ass, too, but oh well.
We have ipv6, it has ipsec builtin, along with some real pottential for security. Given the HUGE ammount(particles in the universe++) of addresses, P2P apps could auto-assign themselves, dynamically, thousands of addresses for their use for each file transfer, etc. Along with mac address spoofing and secure deleting of leftover evidence. I had a post on this a while back, actually.
Finally, what we need is a couple things. First, in my opinion, the.org and even the.net TLDs should fork and be required to be either non-profit or personal websites. COM should be businesses ONLY. beyond that, we need a next-gen tcp/ip stack. Maybjust a X/ipv6 stack. Some 4/5/6 layers protocol that does trasparent peer routing and discovery using sessions, ports, addresses and end-to-end delivery. All ontop of ipv6 for the above reasons.
Making it an x/ipv6 stack does a couple things. First, it stress tests the X protocol. Making it non-app specific, many p2p programs could use it. Kazaa, gnuetella, limewire, etc. Could all have virtual networks independent of eachother but using this protocol.
Making it a protocol like this means no more reinventing the wheel every time. It becomes more robust, more usable, more tested and reliable, it becomes the backbone of the internet, really, and that makes it build momentum to be used more often.
Only the US is currently 'capable'... Russia, the EU, China and Brazil follow.
It is a scientific agreement, really. In the same way the antartic doesn't have a little Moscow, the Moon won't host little beijing. Most likely the economic restraints are what really holds it back, no country, other than the US, could feasibly attempt a moon colony, the EU maybe, but the multi-national issues would be too great. It would be like a UN fork. China trying to join the WTO and whatnot couldn't afford it either, due to the limitations the countries of the world would put on it as punnishment..
It isn't so much international law, as it is peer pressure that keeps these gentlemen's agreements intact.
To go a step further back, the Revolutionary War was, to my knowledge, among the first instances of guerilla warfare and terrorism. The fouding fathers were leading the populous in a war against the occupying nation(then the world's most powerful nation) and used any means necesary, including the stories of farmers with rifles picking off british soldiers as they marched on the road.
PS: Not to troll, but there could EASILY be made ties to presnet day conflicts in that sentence, and in the sense of the revolutionary war, be FULLY justified 50 years from now, depending on the timeline of events.
They would actually be international parks, like the Moon and the Antartic. Those regions are for scientific purposes only and cannot have an specific nation colonize the area. This would likely be through the United Nations.
OK, I read the article. I am also as realistic a tree-hugger as any of us. But, with that said, other than 1/3 billion down the tube, what is wrong with this idea? Not that I support it, but, in place of 200+ plane trips every season, a road is required.
I assume the filling of huge crevasses is causing your inflamed emotion... Are you just arguing on the (valid) point of preserving natural beauty?
You have to be fucking kidding. Unless you ARE the chinese government-run news agency(who must have recently recruited the Iraqi Information Minister), you have been living under a rock for a couple decades...
Free speech? Bullshit. It isn't even that they have transparent censorship. They have downright oppression. Everyone breathing should know this by now.
Isn't this the same government that ran over students protesting with a tank. A TANK.
America has, in my opinion, a rediculously poor record for our free speech record. But even the 60's protest issues don't hold a candle to the crap Chinese dissidents and citizens have to deal with.
Hey, now. Give us a chance. This whole interweb is still catching on in some of our best parts like the deep south and the plain states. Couple more months, and we'll show YOU who is the most arrogant, pretentious, ill-informed isolationists on the planet. We can do better, we PROMISE. Maybe more websites about our pet cats?
My post was a very devil's advocate view of why they are doing it... I somewhat understand the argument 'THEY make it, THEY decide how those who want to enjoy it get to enjoy it.' however, in reality, i lean towards the 'F you, I want my fair rights back'
Watching video content is not a right, it is a privledge. The company you are using your right to watch has chosen a media that is OS-specific. It is not your RIGHT to reverse the technology that makes it OS-specific and distribute those means to others.
If you want to watch content, fine. You don't get to reverse the media that the content provider makes on his content for your personal pleasure. You want to use someone else's product, service or content, you have to do it by THERE standards, within reason, otherwiseyou are out of luck...
Assuming people are not biased, which can be reasonably assured by physical oversight, double-checking, vetting and such, people do not make errors where 'all votes of X pattern' are wrongly given to candidate 'y'. Honest people make candidate-nuetral mistatkes statistically. An honest person does not wrong give candidate Y 500 more votes, the person statistically is likely to make mistakes, very few, and they are likely to go evenly across all candidates.
A computer when it malfunctions normally does so in a biased way. A computer will error where a given timespan of votes is dropped, a given candidate is ignored, a count tally is mis-added, a given pattern of votes is wrongly tallied, etc. This is generally a biased(though not intentional) error, where it more often then not, hurts a given candidate far more so than the others, rather than evenly hurting them.
How will this project not lead to wider spread theft? Just more legit keys and cds on the networks to be stolen.
What is this, if not a system to arbitrarily build their blacklist of banned XP keys for updates?
Instead of wasting the time, why don't they just allow the updates on all xp installs, legal or not. It will lead to more patched systems, and improve the market for microsoft.
Actually, you can order your upgrade disk today. I just got 10 packs, nice bi-fold cds, with version 4.1, an install AND a live cd in each set. No charge. High quality packages too.
>Why is a hand recount infallible? What happens when the counter loses count?
A human makes random mistakes, if they are to miscount X%, it is likely that that X% is even distributed amongst the candidates. A computer doesn't, it tends to make non-random errors... Such as the case where a computer was counting ballots that voted all-democrat and tallying them for the Libertarian party... This actually swung the election to the wrong candidate.
Besides which, the human recount can be, obviously re-recounted, if needed.
>How does that prevent a candidate from winning by fewer than 100 votes?
My points here were a bit off topic, it was more in reference to the ballot/voting system as a whole. However, if the Govenor didn't get 51% of the vote, IRV would have kicked in.
>I suspect far more votes that 100 were lost this way in WA
You may very well be right, but this has nothing to do with physical vs. computer ballot counting. It is a potential weakness of all mail-in systems. However, things like ballot day are pretty likely to get sent out the day of. The USPS isn't THAT stupid, they arn't going to hold over(or not do everything they can to avoid holding over...) mail-in ballots on the last day of voting. They would knowingly(if they did it on purpose) be tampering with the election.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that just a bug in Cisco's IOS software? CEF should, IMO, start replacing lease-used routes(replacing the previously made blaster-inspired 1 use routes) with the new routes when it maxes its memory.
light a match?
"They don't even specify the margin of error of their predictions. I guess that would be too much of a liability."
Correct me if I am wrong, but how would it be anything but 100% margin of error. Literally, they look at the market from a non-native perspective and bullshit a guess. Some are better than others, but still.
But we need to put a safety precaution in there, so they can't go crazy... Maybe if we power them soley by solar panels, that would keep them under control... right?
Right?
As mentioned in another post, OpenBSD has pf, a firewall that supports OS fingerprinting. I don't know if windows can accurately be 'spoofed' or how pf works, but the system does exist.
I wonder if we could add a module to spamassassin?
What US law would you like to apply to a Chinese email server admin?
You think Congress passing a law is going to make it at all enforcable in countries that feel free to tell Americans where they can shove it?
Legality is a joke when enforcing something like spam on the internet. If you get China to crack down, which you won't, then the 25lb servers just get shipped to India, Pakistan, russia, east europe, sout america... Hell. Anywhere.
Furthermore, some now do, and more will, use bot networks of rooted Windows machines as proxy slaves to spam email, creating a virtual barrier from the real bad guy.
hardly any of their 'workforce' are white colar. The infrastructure and core, sure, but the real numbers(delivery and on the distrobution hub floor) are all blue colar types.
Plus, FedEx does a lot of corporate delivery and whatnot, so they are busy 24/7
For sites that code to ie-only standards, using the IE engine is the ONLY way to view such websites. Period.
This would be a nice extension to firefox, actually.
What would it take for Linux(the kernel) to be Trusted Linux? What is needed to be added, and is anyone working on it?
http://www.acquisitionx.com/ - acquistion, the best p2p client I have seen to date. It runs on top of (i believe) the limewire core, apparently, but speed is top notch. it is a native mac gui, acts very native, not some ported software, and has very good speeds. I have had some files that were bogus, less than probably .5% quite honestly. Good software, very nice feel and reliability.
absolutely NO pop-ups, ads or wonky behavior. Plus, since it is mac only, you can pretty much download whatever results pop up, since any corrupt windows-virus-files won't work.
NOTE: No, I am not affiliated with acquisition. I am an EXTREMELY happy user that has paid for the option shareware fee. Worth the money to support these guys.
"Why are you installing an operating system from 1999?"
Tried and true.
erm, yes. but the latter isn't written down :)
It is all a matter of degrees. How sure do you want your privacy and anonymity? Hmm?
.org and even the .net TLDs should fork and be required to be either non-profit or personal websites. COM should be businesses ONLY. beyond that, we need a next-gen tcp/ip stack. Maybjust a X/ipv6 stack. Some 4/5/6 layers protocol that does trasparent peer routing and discovery using sessions, ports, addresses and end-to-end delivery. All ontop of ipv6 for the above reasons.
We have WASTE, sure. It works great for files on small networks. I know, I was one of the (for lack of a better term) instigators that formed one of the largest(to my knowledge and to the ability of waste) networks. It was nice, actually. If WASTE could interpret/intercept websites the way Freenet does, we would have something, but it is still too clumsy and feature-incomplete, with no real usable os x port to my knowledge. Besides, the routing protocol doesn't support super-peers or similar, so you really just have a single flat mesh, rather than a gnuetella hierarchical mesh that scales much, much, MUCH better. The key sharing was a pain in the ass, too, but oh well.
We have ipv6, it has ipsec builtin, along with some real pottential for security. Given the HUGE ammount(particles in the universe++) of addresses, P2P apps could auto-assign themselves, dynamically, thousands of addresses for their use for each file transfer, etc. Along with mac address spoofing and secure deleting of leftover evidence. I had a post on this a while back, actually.
Finally, what we need is a couple things. First, in my opinion, the
Making it an x/ipv6 stack does a couple things. First, it stress tests the X protocol. Making it non-app specific, many p2p programs could use it. Kazaa, gnuetella, limewire, etc. Could all have virtual networks independent of eachother but using this protocol.
Making it a protocol like this means no more reinventing the wheel every time. It becomes more robust, more usable, more tested and reliable, it becomes the backbone of the internet, really, and that makes it build momentum to be used more often.
Only the US is currently 'capable'... Russia, the EU, China and Brazil follow.
It is a scientific agreement, really. In the same way the antartic doesn't have a little Moscow, the Moon won't host little beijing. Most likely the economic restraints are what really holds it back, no country, other than the US, could feasibly attempt a moon colony, the EU maybe, but the multi-national issues would be too great. It would be like a UN fork. China trying to join the WTO and whatnot couldn't afford it either, due to the limitations the countries of the world would put on it as punnishment..
It isn't so much international law, as it is peer pressure that keeps these gentlemen's agreements intact.
Good point.
To go a step further back, the Revolutionary War was, to my knowledge, among the first instances of guerilla warfare and terrorism. The fouding fathers were leading the populous in a war against the occupying nation(then the world's most powerful nation) and used any means necesary, including the stories of farmers with rifles picking off british soldiers as they marched on the road.
PS: Not to troll, but there could EASILY be made ties to presnet day conflicts in that sentence, and in the sense of the revolutionary war, be FULLY justified 50 years from now, depending on the timeline of events.
They would actually be international parks, like the Moon and the Antartic. Those regions are for scientific purposes only and cannot have an specific nation colonize the area. This would likely be through the United Nations.
OK, I read the article. I am also as realistic a tree-hugger as any of us. But, with that said, other than 1/3 billion down the tube, what is wrong with this idea? Not that I support it, but, in place of 200+ plane trips every season, a road is required.
I assume the filling of huge crevasses is causing your inflamed emotion... Are you just arguing on the (valid) point of preserving natural beauty?
You have to be fucking kidding. Unless you ARE the chinese government-run news agency(who must have recently recruited the Iraqi Information Minister), you have been living under a rock for a couple decades...
Free speech? Bullshit. It isn't even that they have transparent censorship. They have downright oppression. Everyone breathing should know this by now.
Isn't this the same government that ran over students protesting with a tank. A TANK.
America has, in my opinion, a rediculously poor record for our free speech record. But even the 60's protest issues don't hold a candle to the crap Chinese dissidents and citizens have to deal with.
If that was a joke, you failed miserably.
Hey, now. Give us a chance. This whole interweb is still catching on in some of our best parts like the deep south and the plain states. Couple more months, and we'll show YOU who is the most arrogant, pretentious, ill-informed isolationists on the planet. We can do better, we PROMISE. Maybe more websites about our pet cats?
Sincerererely,
America's Web Commubity
That is a damn fair point.
My post was a very devil's advocate view of why they are doing it... I somewhat understand the argument 'THEY make it, THEY decide how those who want to enjoy it get to enjoy it.' however, in reality, i lean towards the 'F you, I want my fair rights back'
Watching video content is not a right, it is a privledge. The company you are using your right to watch has chosen a media that is OS-specific. It is not your RIGHT to reverse the technology that makes it OS-specific and distribute those means to others.
If you want to watch content, fine. You don't get to reverse the media that the content provider makes on his content for your personal pleasure. You want to use someone else's product, service or content, you have to do it by THERE standards, within reason, otherwiseyou are out of luck...
FYI: I am STRONGLY opposed to software patents.
Assuming people are not biased, which can be reasonably assured by physical oversight, double-checking, vetting and such, people do not make errors where 'all votes of X pattern' are wrongly given to candidate 'y'. Honest people make candidate-nuetral mistatkes statistically. An honest person does not wrong give candidate Y 500 more votes, the person statistically is likely to make mistakes, very few, and they are likely to go evenly across all candidates.
A computer when it malfunctions normally does so in a biased way. A computer will error where a given timespan of votes is dropped, a given candidate is ignored, a count tally is mis-added, a given pattern of votes is wrongly tallied, etc. This is generally a biased(though not intentional) error, where it more often then not, hurts a given candidate far more so than the others, rather than evenly hurting them.
How will this project not lead to wider spread theft? Just more legit keys and cds on the networks to be stolen.
What is this, if not a system to arbitrarily build their blacklist of banned XP keys for updates?
Instead of wasting the time, why don't they just allow the updates on all xp installs, legal or not. It will lead to more patched systems, and improve the market for microsoft.
Actually, you can order your upgrade disk today. I just got 10 packs, nice bi-fold cds, with version 4.1, an install AND a live cd in each set. No charge. High quality packages too.
>Why is a hand recount infallible? What
happens when the counter loses count?
A human makes random mistakes, if they are to miscount X%, it is likely that that X% is even distributed amongst the candidates. A computer doesn't, it tends to make non-random errors... Such as the case where a computer was counting ballots that voted all-democrat and tallying them for the Libertarian party... This actually swung the election to the wrong candidate.
Besides which, the human recount can be, obviously re-recounted, if needed.
>How does that prevent a candidate from winning
by fewer than 100 votes?
My points here were a bit off topic, it was more in reference to the ballot/voting system as a whole. However, if the Govenor didn't get 51% of the vote, IRV would have kicked in.
>I suspect
far more votes that 100 were lost this way in WA
You may very well be right, but this has nothing to do with physical vs. computer ballot counting. It is a potential weakness of all mail-in systems. However, things like ballot day are pretty likely to get sent out the day of. The USPS isn't THAT stupid, they arn't going to hold over(or not do everything they can to avoid holding over...) mail-in ballots on the last day of voting. They would knowingly(if they did it on purpose) be tampering with the election.