Is it really an offense worthy of death to act according to your own morality?
We are a democracy. We make our decisions collectively and/or have duly elected representatives subject to periodic elections make the decisions. What makes you think your or Rosenberg's morality in matters of public policy is greater than the wisdom of the democracy? Rosenburg had no right to endanger the ENTIRE population of the country by giving atomic secrets to Stalin. No one man has a right to substitute his opinion for that of an election of the people. Rosenberg wasn't engaged in civil disobedience by waving a sign in the park, he enabled a ruthless genocidal dictatorship (Stalin) with the power to destroy the country in a nuclear holocaust.
Instead of spraying the coolant system with water in an evaporating tower, how about a fully closed system where the coolant fluid exchanges the the "waste heat" into a second system that then has a useful purpose like powering some small portion of the building's electricity? The energy from the heat would be transduced and the now cooled coolant flows back.
The legality/morality/necessity of this depends on how the entire terrorism issue is framed. Is it a national security issue or common crime? Should the approach be military or law enforcement?
If this is a national security issue requiring a military response, then this is an "intelligence intercept of enemy communications" and is part of waging war. The legal system, courts, and warrants simply do not factor into the execution of military operations, nor would it be appropriate for a commander to get a warrant to intercept enemy military communications. The military should never have to get a warrant to intercept orders between the enemy HQ and enemy commandos who have infiltrated behind our lines and are planning an attack.
If you think this is a criminal issue requiring a law enforcement response and the suspects are going to be arrested, brought before a court, and tried, then this is a "wiretap" and part of a criminal investigation. Not only would it be appropriate to get a warrant, but it would be required, otherwise the evidence would be inadmissible in court.
So there is the dichotomy. Neither answer is completely wrong depending on the context. I think the appropriate question to frame the context is: "What will be done with the information?" If the goal is to arrest a criminal, prosecute him before a court, get a conviction, and jail him, then warrants are required. If the goal is to wage war and disrupt an enemy operation, and/or capture an enemy without any intent to legally prosecute the enemy operative as a criminal, no warrant is required.
Also, who is the target? Is it foreign enemies talking to their overseas HQ or is it Americans talking domestically to other Americans? The former is an military intercept and the latter is a wiretap.
Perhaps the problem is blurred by accident of history. The US had no meaningful intelligence service until after WWII. Before that, everything was ad-hoc. Counter-intelligence fell upon law enforcement organizations by default, because they were the only trained government investigative services. Before the formation of the FBI in the 1930s, the Treasury Department's Secret Service was sometimes used for intelligence operations. At the time, the Secret Service was the only real federal investigative organization, besides the postal inspectors, so it fell to them by default. Later (1920-1930s) the Justice Department, created the FBI for more general federal law enforcement investigative tasks and so intelligence was passed to them by default. The CIA (which is civilian, but not law enforcement) wasn't formed until after WWII, by which time Hoover's FBI was entrenched in counter-intelligence. The Army's professional Military Intelligence Branch wasn't formed until 1962. Before that, Military Intelligence was an temporary assignment from other branches. So, by the time professional organized civilian or military intelligence services were formed, counter-intelligence was firmly in the grasp of the FBI. Counter-intelligence took on a law enforcement cast, because it was being performed by law enforcement agencies, not because it was more inherently criminal than military. This has colored our perception. Had the military been doing it from the start, we would likely perceive counter-intelligence and terrorism to be a military problem instead of a law enforcement problem.
Yeah, someone could develop a custom filesystem (ala VxFS) and sell it as an add-on application. It would probable be about as successful as Netscape Navigator was, compared to Internet Explorer
So would it be possible to have the custom file system (or ext2 or whatever) and then have the drivers for that fs embedded on some rom chip or non-volatile memory. When the user connects the USB to the device, then the device would automagically download and install its own drivers to windows? Does storage on NVRAM or roms pre-suppose FAT? I know windows can read at least one non-MS filesystem (the CD ISO9660 format). I wonder this about printers to, why do I need a CD? Why can the device install its own drivers when I plug it in?
Don't reinvent the wheel, just use existing standards. US Code (law), Code of Fedreal Regulations, legislative bills are all already highly structured documents. And what commonly used data format is widely used for structured documents?
[drumroll]
XML. The answer here is define to several XML schemas (schemata) to capture the structure of these documents and use existing standards and technology (i.e web services over http) to distribute. None of that is rocket science or would required years of development effort, but may required years of exectuion. Its not hard; its tedious. The tedious part will be converting all the old docs over to XML.
For text, nothing beats non-acidic archival quality rag-paper or vellum. Make sure to get the right kind of non-acidic paper and ink. Print your stuff out. Either bind it or file it in an organized and indexed manner. It will truely last hundreds of years, will always be a "universal" read-write format, and will never be technically obsolete.
This also means you will probably have to review it to seperate the wheat from the chaff. The paper and the space to store it will be limited. So you will have to cull out the junk and figure out what's worth keeping.
On a more serious note (yes I did RTFA), somebody please explain where this fits. Other than network or disk errors (which generally already have error detection schemes), I'm not sure what the target problem is that this is supposed to fix. The article says "the code helps maintain integrity as data moves from application to database, and from Linux operating system to disk storage", that it checks I/O operations, and that "code contribution includes generic support for data integrity at the block and file-system layers". That's still not clear what they think the problem is. Don't most of the modern file systems already check data operations?
Back in the early 90s, when Ford was re-designing the mustang, they used this very concept. Although some of the features were based on nostalgia, they put a lot of stock in the car's personality. They had three competing concepts: the sleak and friendly "Bruce Jenner", the angry agressive "Rambo", and the not-so-angry but still pumped-up "Arnold Schwarzenegger" concept. Bruce was seen by most market surveys as too wimpy. Rambo and Arnold were both popular but Ford pick Arnold. Here is a link http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1994-1995-1996-1997-1998-ford-mustang1.htm
I was just running the normal semi-automated CPAN set-up script which asked for the location of gcc, but it didn't prompt for any other compilers. In hindsight, I probably should have gone into the config file and manually edited it to point to the Sun cc. Somewhere between Sun and CPAN, this is an incredible ovesight to have perl and CPAN not work togather "out of the box" on a major unix. I spent many hours googling for answers, reading man pages, and reading perl docs before I finally gave up and moved the perl application over to linux. Once I started working on the linux machine, everthing worked out of the box as expected. (actually, I was always on the linux terminal because the solaris machine was headless)
BTW, I did have both the Sun compilers and GCC installed. Again, as I said in my OP, I probably could have recompiled an entirely new perl binary with GCC, but I shouldn't have to. Perl is basic tool. It should "just work".
So GNU's Not Unix, but what is it when it is sitting on a true SVR4 UNIX Kernel? GNU iNcludes Unix? Can we say "GNU/SVR4 Unix" without risking RMS having an apolexy?
This isn't the only problem with libc/compilers in Solaris. A few years ago, I was trying to use Solaris 10 to do a project in perl. The project had to do with parsing street addresses, so I was trying to use the CPAN module for that. Turns out that the Sun provided perl binary on Solaris is absolutely borked because it is compiled on the Sun Forte compiler and it won't work with CPAN, which expects to build parts of its modules against GCC and there are some fatal incompatabilities. There are some work-arounds involving shims, but they are serverly non-trivial and I never got them working properly. I was using solaris because all the data was in a berkley-db on the solaris box. I ended up runing the perl part on linux and mounting the berkley-db directory via NFS, which was far easier and reliable than trying to untangle the entire shim business. The other option, I suppose, might have been to compile a completely new perl binary against GCC/glibc and call that whenever I used my project. But still, a major tool like perl should "just work". Perl without CPAN isn't much use. I was completely flabergasted.
Flags are important to Americans because they are a common unifying symbol outside of ethnicity. Most modern nation-states are organic ethnically based. In those countries, the nation and the ethnicity are the same (for example Danes and Denmark). Ethnic solidarity defines those nations. A Dane does not have to profess adherance to the King of Denmark or the Danish Idea to be a Dane. He is a Dane because, he is ethnically a Dane. This is not the case in Amercia. America is, by design, a synthetic nation. Our entire national identity is based on adherance to common political ideas and there is no ethnic solidarity. Our national solidarity is based common identification with political ideas and with symbols of those political ideas (the flag, the liberty bell, statue of liberty, etc). Therefore, it is important to have regular socialization with and emphasis on those political symbols and ideas, least baser instincts (like ethnicity) boil up.
Few other nations (perhaps Canada) can credibly claim this. France similiarly claims to base its nationalaity on political ideas and common citizenship, but ethnicity and 'being French' seems to still be very important to them (although they deny it).
This was sort of done before. There was a myst-style game set in Ancient Rome. It came out circa 1996. You walked aroud acient rome in a myst type environment solving mysteries and puzzles. It was supposed to be geographically realistic. I think there was actually a web-based rpg type version in the 90's too.
Head Start.
Do you know what this program is? The government lets you to earn college credit while you are in high school. Many of my classmates were able to graduate with a bachelor degree a year before us chumps who didn't take uncle sam up on the offer.
I know what Head Start is, but may you should look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start.
He is talking about working "community service" to work with pre-schoolers in poor communities.
BTW... s/community/military/g as a requirement to graduate college and it would be called a draft.
You're right about the proxies or zombies being the real problem. IP spoofing is of limited utility anyway because it is a one way deal. A spoofer can send packets but nothing gets routed back to them, so its really only good for DOS like a syn-flood or one way messaging like UDP.
However, depending on where the filtering takes place, I disagree about the size of the block. If the filtering is implemented at a low-enough level (like the neigborhood dsl exchange), then the block size is fairly small. It it is at the tier-1 level, then you are talking millions of addresses.
Yes, but... if you can think of the internet as a hierarchical tree instead of a web. People think of it as peer-to-peer like a web. But it is really subnet-backbone-subnet, both physically, and logically (DNS). All ISPs have to physically feed into a higher level link until you reach the tier-1 providers which put it on the backbone. Then the tier-1s have to resolve at the 13 root name servers to know where to send it. At each level of the tree, each subnet gets gate-wayed/routed to the higher (or lower) layer. Each level of subnet should have discrete sets of blocks of ICANN assigned numbers right down to the neigborhood dsl-exchange.
So, ICANN could, at least theoretically, make "being connected" conditional on a provision that would flow from tier-1 down to the neighborhood ISP -- "you only resolve and forward out-ward traffic if its origin headers match the assigned block(s) of the origin subnet(s)". If a subnet starts spewing spoofed packets, the next higher tier (up to tier-1) disconnects them until they agree to fix (or filter) the problem. ICANN then rides herd on tier-1 to keep it enforced.
I think I can expand on your idea. While I know the idea of ICANN and the US Department of Commerce controlling the root servers is unpopular with many, I think the following senario is the kind of situation where it would be beneficial.
ICANN assigns blocks of addresses to ISPs. If an ISP is letting "customers" originate (spoof) addresses that are not part of the ISP's assigned block, then ICANN could just refuse to route (or resolve) any traffic from that ISP by decertifying its assigned address block, unless the ISP cleans up its sub-net.
Historically ICANN has had a *very* light hand, but somebody needs to be the responsible adult on the playground and ICANN's control of the address space is as good a place as any to do it.
I would expect that all of an ISP's addresses should be in the block(s) they received from ICANN. If something on their sub-net is generating headers with foreign addresses, then they ought not to route it.
"Blue" in the military means "friendly". It comes from military maps, where unit symbols depicted as color blue are friendly forces and unit symbols in red are enemy forces. For example, if you look in just about any book about the American Civil War, you will alway see by convention that United States forces are blue and Confederate forces red. I belive this convention has been adopted by NATO.
So when he says "If you're not blue, you can't come in.", I suppose he means that they will have some sort of positive identification to determine who the requester is and if a connection is accepted or refused.
I've completely embraced Dojo as a reliable way to quickly produce backend systems with it - and - more recently - front ends.
Producing a 'backend' system with a JS library must be a neat trick, since JS is client side. However, I totally agree with you about the learning curve. I couldn't make heads-or-tails of the code.
Dojo has some cool and impressive examples (the fish eye menu is kinda neat). However,everytime I've looked at Dojo and tried to figure out how to use it, I've had to walk away shaking my head. It is usually easier to implement something myself instead of trying to figure out the all the undocumented spaghetti code and "helper" files and abstractions in Dojo. Dojo seems to have taken all the complexity jokes about java and ported them to javascript. Maybe they have gotten better in the last year or so, but the last time I looked, most of it was undocumented and the code as non-trivial to decypher.
For people who want to use some simple, yet powerful JS/Ajax/CSS, I'v been recommending that they check out BrainJar. Brainjar has some pretty neat stuff that is much easier to figure out, although its random stuff and not a comprehensive toolkit. But brainjar will give you some neat ideas of the things you can to with JS and CSS. Check out the windowing demo and as a plus it won't screw with your mind like Dojo.
What's wrong with internet gambling? Well, what's wrong with electronic voting machines?
There is absolutely no way to know if manipulation/fraud is being comitted. There is no trail or independent confirmation or any way at all to tell if it is honest. (at least at "real" tables, you can watch the dealer and other players and you know they are regulated by the state gaming commission). And since large amounts of money are involved with no oversight, you can almost guarantee it WILL be manipulated. Internet Gambling should be outlawed, not because of killjoy prudism or moralizing, but because the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from certain fraud. Its now a question of "if" the players are being defrauded, but "how much" are they being defrauded.
someone who belives in creationism should not be an (old) heartbeat away from the football.
You mean like Obama, who as an avowed Christian by definition believes in a Divine Creator? Or perhaps like JFK, LBJ, RMN, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes.
Your comment reveals ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, irrational fear, and hate... and I'm not talking about Palin.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really an offense worthy of death to act according to your own morality?
We are a democracy. We make our decisions collectively and/or have duly elected representatives subject to periodic elections make the decisions. What makes you think your or Rosenberg's morality in matters of public policy is greater than the wisdom of the democracy? Rosenburg had no right to endanger the ENTIRE population of the country by giving atomic secrets to Stalin. No one man has a right to substitute his opinion for that of an election of the people. Rosenberg wasn't engaged in civil disobedience by waving a sign in the park, he enabled a ruthless genocidal dictatorship (Stalin) with the power to destroy the country in a nuclear holocaust.
Instead of spraying the coolant system with water in an evaporating tower, how about a fully closed system where the coolant fluid exchanges the the "waste heat" into a second system that then has a useful purpose like powering some small portion of the building's electricity? The energy from the heat would be transduced and the now cooled coolant flows back.
The legality/morality/necessity of this depends on how the entire terrorism issue is framed. Is it a national security issue or common crime? Should the approach be military or law enforcement?
If this is a national security issue requiring a military response, then this is an "intelligence intercept of enemy communications" and is part of waging war. The legal system, courts, and warrants simply do not factor into the execution of military operations, nor would it be appropriate for a commander to get a warrant to intercept enemy military communications. The military should never have to get a warrant to intercept orders between the enemy HQ and enemy commandos who have infiltrated behind our lines and are planning an attack.
If you think this is a criminal issue requiring a law enforcement response and the suspects are going to be arrested, brought before a court, and tried, then this is a "wiretap" and part of a criminal investigation. Not only would it be appropriate to get a warrant, but it would be required, otherwise the evidence would be inadmissible in court.
So there is the dichotomy. Neither answer is completely wrong depending on the context. I think the appropriate question to frame the context is: "What will be done with the information?" If the goal is to arrest a criminal, prosecute him before a court, get a conviction, and jail him, then warrants are required. If the goal is to wage war and disrupt an enemy operation, and/or capture an enemy without any intent to legally prosecute the enemy operative as a criminal, no warrant is required.
Also, who is the target? Is it foreign enemies talking to their overseas HQ or is it Americans talking domestically to other Americans? The former is an military intercept and the latter is a wiretap.
Perhaps the problem is blurred by accident of history. The US had no meaningful intelligence service until after WWII. Before that, everything was ad-hoc. Counter-intelligence fell upon law enforcement organizations by default, because they were the only trained government investigative services. Before the formation of the FBI in the 1930s, the Treasury Department's Secret Service was sometimes used for intelligence operations. At the time, the Secret Service was the only real federal investigative organization, besides the postal inspectors, so it fell to them by default. Later (1920-1930s) the Justice Department, created the FBI for more general federal law enforcement investigative tasks and so intelligence was passed to them by default. The CIA (which is civilian, but not law enforcement) wasn't formed until after WWII, by which time Hoover's FBI was entrenched in counter-intelligence. The Army's professional Military Intelligence Branch wasn't formed until 1962. Before that, Military Intelligence was an temporary assignment from other branches. So, by the time professional organized civilian or military intelligence services were formed, counter-intelligence was firmly in the grasp of the FBI. Counter-intelligence took on a law enforcement cast, because it was being performed by law enforcement agencies, not because it was more inherently criminal than military. This has colored our perception. Had the military been doing it from the start, we would likely perceive counter-intelligence and terrorism to be a military problem instead of a law enforcement problem.
So would it be possible to have the custom file system (or ext2 or whatever) and then have the drivers for that fs embedded on some rom chip or non-volatile memory. When the user connects the USB to the device, then the device would automagically download and install its own drivers to windows? Does storage on NVRAM or roms pre-suppose FAT? I know windows can read at least one non-MS filesystem (the CD ISO9660 format). I wonder this about printers to, why do I need a CD? Why can the device install its own drivers when I plug it in?
Don't reinvent the wheel, just use existing standards. US Code (law), Code of Fedreal Regulations, legislative bills are all already highly structured documents. And what commonly used data format is widely used for structured documents?
[drumroll]
XML. The answer here is define to several XML schemas (schemata) to capture the structure of these documents and use existing standards and technology (i.e web services over http) to distribute. None of that is rocket science or would required years of development effort, but may required years of exectuion. Its not hard; its tedious. The tedious part will be converting all the old docs over to XML.
For text, nothing beats non-acidic archival quality rag-paper or vellum. Make sure to get the right kind of non-acidic paper and ink. Print your stuff out. Either bind it or file it in an organized and indexed manner. It will truely last hundreds of years, will always be a "universal" read-write format, and will never be technically obsolete.
This also means you will probably have to review it to seperate the wheat from the chaff. The paper and the space to store it will be limited. So you will have to cull out the junk and figure out what's worth keeping.
You've invented the Checksum
On a more serious note (yes I did RTFA), somebody please explain where this fits. Other than network or disk errors (which generally already have error detection schemes), I'm not sure what the target problem is that this is supposed to fix. The article says "the code helps maintain integrity as data moves from application to database, and from Linux operating system to disk storage", that it checks I/O operations, and that "code contribution includes generic support for data integrity at the block and file-system layers". That's still not clear what they think the problem is. Don't most of the modern file systems already check data operations?
Back in the early 90s, when Ford was re-designing the mustang, they used this very concept. Although some of the features were based on nostalgia, they put a lot of stock in the car's personality. They had three competing concepts: the sleak and friendly "Bruce Jenner", the angry agressive "Rambo", and the not-so-angry but still pumped-up "Arnold Schwarzenegger" concept. Bruce was seen by most market surveys as too wimpy. Rambo and Arnold were both popular but Ford pick Arnold. Here is a link http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1994-1995-1996-1997-1998-ford-mustang1.htm
I was just running the normal semi-automated CPAN set-up script which asked for the location of gcc, but it didn't prompt for any other compilers. In hindsight, I probably should have gone into the config file and manually edited it to point to the Sun cc. Somewhere between Sun and CPAN, this is an incredible ovesight to have perl and CPAN not work togather "out of the box" on a major unix. I spent many hours googling for answers, reading man pages, and reading perl docs before I finally gave up and moved the perl application over to linux. Once I started working on the linux machine, everthing worked out of the box as expected. (actually, I was always on the linux terminal because the solaris machine was headless)
The shim is called "perlgcc" and IIRC, it shipped on the companion disk. It is also here: http://search.cpan.org/~aburlison/Solaris-PerlGcc-1.3/pod/perlgcc.pod
BTW, I did have both the Sun compilers and GCC installed. Again, as I said in my OP, I probably could have recompiled an entirely new perl binary with GCC, but I shouldn't have to. Perl is basic tool. It should "just work".
Sorry for the spelling, should have been "apoplexy"
So GNU's Not Unix, but what is it when it is sitting on a true SVR4 UNIX Kernel? GNU iNcludes Unix? Can we say "GNU/SVR4 Unix" without risking RMS having an apolexy?
This isn't the only problem with libc/compilers in Solaris. A few years ago, I was trying to use Solaris 10 to do a project in perl. The project had to do with parsing street addresses, so I was trying to use the CPAN module for that. Turns out that the Sun provided perl binary on Solaris is absolutely borked because it is compiled on the Sun Forte compiler and it won't work with CPAN, which expects to build parts of its modules against GCC and there are some fatal incompatabilities. There are some work-arounds involving shims, but they are serverly non-trivial and I never got them working properly. I was using solaris because all the data was in a berkley-db on the solaris box. I ended up runing the perl part on linux and mounting the berkley-db directory via NFS, which was far easier and reliable than trying to untangle the entire shim business. The other option, I suppose, might have been to compile a completely new perl binary against GCC/glibc and call that whenever I used my project. But still, a major tool like perl should "just work". Perl without CPAN isn't much use. I was completely flabergasted.
Flags are important to Americans because they are a common unifying symbol outside of ethnicity. Most modern nation-states are organic ethnically based. In those countries, the nation and the ethnicity are the same (for example Danes and Denmark). Ethnic solidarity defines those nations. A Dane does not have to profess adherance to the King of Denmark or the Danish Idea to be a Dane. He is a Dane because, he is ethnically a Dane. This is not the case in Amercia. America is, by design, a synthetic nation. Our entire national identity is based on adherance to common political ideas and there is no ethnic solidarity. Our national solidarity is based common identification with political ideas and with symbols of those political ideas (the flag, the liberty bell, statue of liberty, etc). Therefore, it is important to have regular socialization with and emphasis on those political symbols and ideas, least baser instincts (like ethnicity) boil up.
Few other nations (perhaps Canada) can credibly claim this. France similiarly claims to base its nationalaity on political ideas and common citizenship, but ethnicity and 'being French' seems to still be very important to them (although they deny it).
This was sort of done before. There was a myst-style game set in Ancient Rome. It came out circa 1996. You walked aroud acient rome in a myst type environment solving mysteries and puzzles. It was supposed to be geographically realistic. I think there was actually a web-based rpg type version in the 90's too.
I know what Head Start is, but may you should look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start.
He is talking about working "community service" to work with pre-schoolers in poor communities.
BTW... s/community/military/g as a requirement to graduate college and it would be called a draft.
You're right about the proxies or zombies being the real problem. IP spoofing is of limited utility anyway because it is a one way deal. A spoofer can send packets but nothing gets routed back to them, so its really only good for DOS like a syn-flood or one way messaging like UDP.
However, depending on where the filtering takes place, I disagree about the size of the block. If the filtering is implemented at a low-enough level (like the neigborhood dsl exchange), then the block size is fairly small. It it is at the tier-1 level, then you are talking millions of addresses.
Yes, but... if you can think of the internet as a hierarchical tree instead of a web. People think of it as peer-to-peer like a web. But it is really subnet-backbone-subnet, both physically, and logically (DNS). All ISPs have to physically feed into a higher level link until you reach the tier-1 providers which put it on the backbone. Then the tier-1s have to resolve at the 13 root name servers to know where to send it. At each level of the tree, each subnet gets gate-wayed/routed to the higher (or lower) layer. Each level of subnet should have discrete sets of blocks of ICANN assigned numbers right down to the neigborhood dsl-exchange.
So, ICANN could, at least theoretically, make "being connected" conditional on a provision that would flow from tier-1 down to the neighborhood ISP -- "you only resolve and forward out-ward traffic if its origin headers match the assigned block(s) of the origin subnet(s)". If a subnet starts spewing spoofed packets, the next higher tier (up to tier-1) disconnects them until they agree to fix (or filter) the problem. ICANN then rides herd on tier-1 to keep it enforced.
I think I can expand on your idea. While I know the idea of ICANN and the US Department of Commerce controlling the root servers is unpopular with many, I think the following senario is the kind of situation where it would be beneficial.
ICANN assigns blocks of addresses to ISPs. If an ISP is letting "customers" originate (spoof) addresses that are not part of the ISP's assigned block, then ICANN could just refuse to route (or resolve) any traffic from that ISP by decertifying its assigned address block, unless the ISP cleans up its sub-net.
Historically ICANN has had a *very* light hand, but somebody needs to be the responsible adult on the playground and ICANN's control of the address space is as good a place as any to do it.
I would expect that all of an ISP's addresses should be in the block(s) they received from ICANN. If something on their sub-net is generating headers with foreign addresses, then they ought not to route it.
"Blue" in the military means "friendly". It comes from military maps, where unit symbols depicted as color blue are friendly forces and unit symbols in red are enemy forces. For example, if you look in just about any book about the American Civil War, you will alway see by convention that United States forces are blue and Confederate forces red. I belive this convention has been adopted by NATO.
So when he says "If you're not blue, you can't come in.", I suppose he means that they will have some sort of positive identification to determine who the requester is and if a connection is accepted or refused.
I've completely embraced Dojo as a reliable way to quickly produce backend systems with it - and - more recently - front ends.
Producing a 'backend' system with a JS library must be a neat trick, since JS is client side. However, I totally agree with you about the learning curve. I couldn't make heads-or-tails of the code.
Dojo has some cool and impressive examples (the fish eye menu is kinda neat). However,everytime I've looked at Dojo and tried to figure out how to use it, I've had to walk away shaking my head. It is usually easier to implement something myself instead of trying to figure out the all the undocumented spaghetti code and "helper" files and abstractions in Dojo. Dojo seems to have taken all the complexity jokes about java and ported them to javascript. Maybe they have gotten better in the last year or so, but the last time I looked, most of it was undocumented and the code as non-trivial to decypher.
For people who want to use some simple, yet powerful JS/Ajax/CSS, I'v been recommending that they check out BrainJar. Brainjar has some pretty neat stuff that is much easier to figure out, although its random stuff and not a comprehensive toolkit. But brainjar will give you some neat ideas of the things you can to with JS and CSS. Check out the windowing demo and as a plus it won't screw with your mind like Dojo.
What's wrong with internet gambling? Well, what's wrong with electronic voting machines?
There is absolutely no way to know if manipulation/fraud is being comitted. There is no trail or independent confirmation or any way at all to tell if it is honest. (at least at "real" tables, you can watch the dealer and other players and you know they are regulated by the state gaming commission). And since large amounts of money are involved with no oversight, you can almost guarantee it WILL be manipulated. Internet Gambling should be outlawed, not because of killjoy prudism or moralizing, but because the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from certain fraud. Its now a question of "if" the players are being defrauded, but "how much" are they being defrauded.
Even wellknown "respected" sites can be fraudulant. Take a look at this MSNBC story Poker site cheating plot a high-stakes whodunit.
someone who belives in creationism should not be an (old) heartbeat away from the football.
You mean like Obama, who as an avowed Christian by definition believes in a Divine Creator? Or perhaps like JFK, LBJ, RMN, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes.
Your comment reveals ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, irrational fear, and hate... and I'm not talking about Palin.