If the email providers a adding "golflanding.com" to their black list, stop sending the entire domain name on one piece. Construct a simple Turing test that the end user can solve to construct the name. If the text of the Turing test starts getting blocked as spam, you may be able to modify the test. Reducing the risk of the name of the proxy becoming well known or getting blocked automatically.
Perhaps he needs to build a new communication channel with his subscribers as his current approach has some obvious downsides. When a user first connects to a proxy give them a couple of proxy names randomly selected from your new list. Perhaps some client software that can silently refresh its list in the background, provided that one link still works.
And every password should use a different salt. Sure you can try 77 million combinations a second, but you can't check those results across the entire password file. You have to repeat the entire cracking process for each user.
But there is no standard specification for *how* secure boot can be turned off. Or *how* the user can install a new key. It's the question of "how" to guide the user through the firmware screens that prompted the development of shim in the first place. This way there's one component with a known UI to guide the user through.
The main issue with the standard, is that access points are considered equal peers to the other devices on the network, and all devices should back off if the wifi medium is congested. But if everyone is fetching data from the internet and not from each other, the access point should be transmitting more than anyone else. Plus if we're talking TCP streams, which is likely, those clients are likely to be asking for re-transmissions. This will only make the problem worse, as the AP now has even more packets to deliver.
If the AP instead just keeps talking, preventing other wifi devices from getting a word in edgeways, it can clear any backlog quickly *and* make more efficient use of the available bandwidth.
Picture a dinner party conversation. Everyone is ultra polite, waiting for long periods of silence before saying something. And stopping if two people talk at the same time. In this case very few words are actually said. But the loud mouth at the table with no manners? When he's got something to say, he just keeps talking without pausing for breath. Everyone else is too polite to but in, and overall more words are spoken.
Most of the time all wifi clients want to talk to the network behind the AP, meaning that the AP should use a disproportionate share of the available airtime. So it stands to reason that the AP should bias its transmit priority or enter a kind of burst mode whenever its transmit queue starts to fill up.
Anyway, here's a little more info for people who haven't read the spec's for 802.11. When a station wants to send a frame, it first waits for a DIFS interval (28us) with no carrier detected, then picks a back off counter from 0-31 and waits for that many SIFS intervals (9us) to elapse. If there's still no-one transmitting, the radio will flip from receive to transmit mode and attempt to send a frame. If the back off fails, the upper limit will rise exponentially up to a limit of 255.
So if an AP wants to increase its priority in a graceful manner, it could simply choose a lower back off counter. Even if the other devices in the network are increasing theirs due to congestion. And after sending a single frame, instead of waiting for another DIFS + back off interval, it only has to wait for a single SIFS interval before transmitting. If every other device on the network is following the spec, they should still hear the transmitted frame.
Before a wifi device can transmit a packet, it must wait for a period of silence where no carrier is detected. Any device can simply keep transmitting to hog up the channel indefinitely.
This is the same idea behind the 802.11e burst mode, where you transmit a number of packets in quick succession, then ask the intended recipient to give you a bitmask of all the successfully delivered frames. Without pausing long enough for any other devices to jump in.
A login process is opt-in and should therefore be exempt from the do not track setting. But if your web site added a cookie and tracked my page views without my explicit consent? That's something else entirely.
Bring monetary policy under democratic control by prohibiting private banks from creating money, thus restoring government's Constitutional authority.
Democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation. This means nationalizing the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and placing them under a Federal Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department.
The Federal Reserve is not the primary source of created money, it barely creates any. The Money Multiplier is a myth that is not backed up by empirical evidence.
The real source of most money floating around the economy is credit issued by banks. Sure the banks have to loan money from the federal reserve to meet their liquidity and capital requirements, but this does not constrain the lending of by banks in any way.
So you want to take away the power of banks to create credit and money? Do you think the government is going to set the balance of money perfectly in the economy? At least banks respond to demand quite quickly, and should take reasonable measures to limit their exposure to bad investments.
Banks have a motivation to create too much credit until the economy sags under the weight of debt. Limit the ratio of debt to income in the economy and most of the problems with the current system will go away.
The lower house represents each district, first past the post, but with run-off voting for 3rd party candidates. The upper house is elected based on the proportion of votes, with some number of seats per state.
The lower house represents the majority opinion, but everything they want to do must pass the upper house, who represent significant minorities across the entire population.
If you're just going to pick a few sentences out of the article, you should at least talk about "who" and "what". All we've been left with in the summary is "problem description" and "hype"
Use tab's for indenting, use spaces when you want to indent a multi-line statement. If the control flow of you application is so horribly nested that you can't fit it on a narrow screen, you have bigger problems.
Programmers should rub shoulders with the end users as they go about their jobs. If you don't hear their easily fixed grievances directly, they may never filter through the layers of bureaucracy that can build up.
"Oh, you need to get from that screen to this one, but we currently force you to search for the record again? Easily added."
"This report takes 30 minutes to run and you run it every day? I'll have a look at it."
"Wait, why are you copying all of that data into a spreadsheet? I can add that calculation to the screen for you."
The wifi layer should be doing the extra error correction on everything. All packets should be sent as a stream of 64 byte blocks, with the recipient sending a "Got it" (ACK), "Lets just give up now" (NACK), or a new "More ECC blocks please" response. Instead of dropping the entire frame on the floor you could keep sending more data until the receiver can reconstruct the entire frame, up to a maximum threshold of course.
Ok, so X11 sucks for local display, and it's not very good for remote display either.
I believe the plan going forward for local rendering with Wayland, is for the toolkit to render directly. I imagine that each toolkit might end up writing their own network transport for remote access, to give a better experience than just falling back to X11.
So what I think we need, is for the core team for each major toolkit to sit in a room and try to design an extensible network transport that they can all agree to use. With a core set of features, and perhaps some toolkit specific extensions. Perhaps ending up with a process similar to the way HTML has evolved over time.
Nope, creating money doesn't require the Fed, nor does the money multiplier really work.
Banks create money through double entry book keeping; here's a million dollars, and you owe me a million dollars.
Banks only borrow from the Fed to meet their reserve requirements, and then only for some types of deposits.
Provided the bank operators pay out their income from interest, the money will flow around the economy and can be re-used to pay interest. Don't make the common mistake of confusing a stock with a flow, eg the level of debt vs income and interest. It is possible to build a model of the economy, with banks loans and interest, where debts can be repaid from the circulation of money.
Sure, money is created by lending it. It's the bank's who do it, chasing a fraction of that amount from the fed up to 30 days later. But don't confuse a stock (debt) with a flow (income / interest). Provided bank managers spend their income from interest repayments, you can have a stable economy where everyone can repay their debts as cash flows around.
The biggest force in the economy, is the acceleration in the total level of debt. When it's accelerating, we're having a boom. When it's decelerating, we're in a slump.
Collectively spending more than we earn on credit causes a boom. Living within our means and paying off our debts causes a slump. At least when the level of debt is as high as it is these days. When you add the change in debt to GDP for the US, you can easily see the effect of the big slump in 2008.
It's not hoarding that causes deflation, or vice versa. Sure the velocity of money goes down, but that's because people are spending less than they earn and are trying to pay off their debts. They aren't just holding onto the cash.
During my lifetime, American policy has held inflation at low-but-positive values, and I think that is very good policy.
From the perspective of economic theory and policy, this vision of a capitalist economy with finance requires us to go beyond that habit of mind which Keynes described so well, the excessive reliance on the (stable) recent past as a guide to the future. The chaotic dynamics explored in this paper should warn us against accepting a period of relative tranquility in a capitalist economy as anything other than a lull before the storm. (Keen, 1995, p. 634)
Correct. ABS forces your breaks to release *after* they have already locked up. To regain control, your wheels must start spinning again to match the ground. But if you're driving on ice, that may not happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Betteridge strikes again.
If the email providers a adding "golflanding.com" to their black list, stop sending the entire domain name on one piece. Construct a simple Turing test that the end user can solve to construct the name. If the text of the Turing test starts getting blocked as spam, you may be able to modify the test. Reducing the risk of the name of the proxy becoming well known or getting blocked automatically.
Perhaps he needs to build a new communication channel with his subscribers as his current approach has some obvious downsides. When a user first connects to a proxy give them a couple of proxy names randomly selected from your new list. Perhaps some client software that can silently refresh its list in the background, provided that one link still works.
And every password should use a different salt. Sure you can try 77 million combinations a second, but you can't check those results across the entire password file. You have to repeat the entire cracking process for each user.
But there is no standard specification for *how* secure boot can be turned off. Or *how* the user can install a new key. It's the question of "how" to guide the user through the firmware screens that prompted the development of shim in the first place. This way there's one component with a known UI to guide the user through.
That's what I did, but my main motivation is their history of regional price discrimination.
Steam has a bigger collection, with more popular games. So you would have to drop your price to get noticed in the bargain bin.
With GoG's more limited selection, a higher price will still sell.
It may not be as hard as you think.
The main issue with the standard, is that access points are considered equal peers to the other devices on the network, and all devices should back off if the wifi medium is congested. But if everyone is fetching data from the internet and not from each other, the access point should be transmitting more than anyone else. Plus if we're talking TCP streams, which is likely, those clients are likely to be asking for re-transmissions. This will only make the problem worse, as the AP now has even more packets to deliver.
If the AP instead just keeps talking, preventing other wifi devices from getting a word in edgeways, it can clear any backlog quickly *and* make more efficient use of the available bandwidth.
Picture a dinner party conversation. Everyone is ultra polite, waiting for long periods of silence before saying something. And stopping if two people talk at the same time. In this case very few words are actually said. But the loud mouth at the table with no manners? When he's got something to say, he just keeps talking without pausing for breath. Everyone else is too polite to but in, and overall more words are spoken.
Yeah, that's basically what I was thinking.
Most of the time all wifi clients want to talk to the network behind the AP, meaning that the AP should use a disproportionate share of the available airtime. So it stands to reason that the AP should bias its transmit priority or enter a kind of burst mode whenever its transmit queue starts to fill up.
Anyway, here's a little more info for people who haven't read the spec's for 802.11. When a station wants to send a frame, it first waits for a DIFS interval (28us) with no carrier detected, then picks a back off counter from 0-31 and waits for that many SIFS intervals (9us) to elapse. If there's still no-one transmitting, the radio will flip from receive to transmit mode and attempt to send a frame. If the back off fails, the upper limit will rise exponentially up to a limit of 255.
So if an AP wants to increase its priority in a graceful manner, it could simply choose a lower back off counter. Even if the other devices in the network are increasing theirs due to congestion. And after sending a single frame, instead of waiting for another DIFS + back off interval, it only has to wait for a single SIFS interval before transmitting. If every other device on the network is following the spec, they should still hear the transmitted frame.
Before a wifi device can transmit a packet, it must wait for a period of silence where no carrier is detected. Any device can simply keep transmitting to hog up the channel indefinitely.
This is the same idea behind the 802.11e burst mode, where you transmit a number of packets in quick succession, then ask the intended recipient to give you a bitmask of all the successfully delivered frames. Without pausing long enough for any other devices to jump in.
A login process is opt-in and should therefore be exempt from the do not track setting. But if your web site added a cookie and tracked my page views without my explicit consent? That's something else entirely.
Bring monetary policy under democratic control by prohibiting private banks from creating money, thus restoring government's Constitutional authority.
Democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation. This means nationalizing the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and placing them under a Federal Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department.
The Federal Reserve is not the primary source of created money, it barely creates any. The Money Multiplier is a myth that is not backed up by empirical evidence.
The real source of most money floating around the economy is credit issued by banks. Sure the banks have to loan money from the federal reserve to meet their liquidity and capital requirements, but this does not constrain the lending of by banks in any way.
So you want to take away the power of banks to create credit and money? Do you think the government is going to set the balance of money perfectly in the economy? At least banks respond to demand quite quickly, and should take reasonable measures to limit their exposure to bad investments.
Banks have a motivation to create too much credit until the economy sags under the weight of debt. Limit the ratio of debt to income in the economy and most of the problems with the current system will go away.
I like the system in Australia.
The lower house represents each district, first past the post, but with run-off voting for 3rd party candidates. The upper house is elected based on the proportion of votes, with some number of seats per state.
The lower house represents the majority opinion, but everything they want to do must pass the upper house, who represent significant minorities across the entire population.
If you're just going to pick a few sentences out of the article, you should at least talk about "who" and "what". All we've been left with in the summary is "problem description" and "hype"
Use tab's for indenting, use spaces when you want to indent a multi-line statement. If the control flow of you application is so horribly nested that you can't fit it on a narrow screen, you have bigger problems.
Programmers should rub shoulders with the end users as they go about their jobs. If you don't hear their easily fixed grievances directly, they may never filter through the layers of bureaucracy that can build up.
"Oh, you need to get from that screen to this one, but we currently force you to search for the record again? Easily added."
"This report takes 30 minutes to run and you run it every day? I'll have a look at it."
"Wait, why are you copying all of that data into a spreadsheet? I can add that calculation to the screen for you."
The wifi layer should be doing the extra error correction on everything. All packets should be sent as a stream of 64 byte blocks, with the recipient sending a "Got it" (ACK), "Lets just give up now" (NACK), or a new "More ECC blocks please" response. Instead of dropping the entire frame on the floor you could keep sending more data until the receiver can reconstruct the entire frame, up to a maximum threshold of course.
Is that really X11, the network abstraction layer, though? Or is that another extension written to bypass X and go straight to opengl.
Ok, so X11 sucks for local display, and it's not very good for remote display either.
I believe the plan going forward for local rendering with Wayland, is for the toolkit to render directly. I imagine that each toolkit might end up writing their own network transport for remote access, to give a better experience than just falling back to X11.
So what I think we need, is for the core team for each major toolkit to sit in a room and try to design an extensible network transport that they can all agree to use. With a core set of features, and perhaps some toolkit specific extensions. Perhaps ending up with a process similar to the way HTML has evolved over time.
Merely alleging that double entry bookkeeping creates money doesn't make it true
I'd suggest you read this. And pay particular attention to this graph that compares the level of debt, issued by banks, with other supplies of money.
Credit issued by banks, completely dwarfs all other forms of money in the economy.
Nope, creating money doesn't require the Fed, nor does the money multiplier really work.
Banks create money through double entry book keeping; here's a million dollars, and you owe me a million dollars.
Banks only borrow from the Fed to meet their reserve requirements, and then only for some types of deposits.
Provided the bank operators pay out their income from interest, the money will flow around the economy and can be re-used to pay interest. Don't make the common mistake of confusing a stock with a flow, eg the level of debt vs income and interest. It is possible to build a model of the economy, with banks loans and interest, where debts can be repaid from the circulation of money.
Sure, money is created by lending it. It's the bank's who do it, chasing a fraction of that amount from the fed up to 30 days later. But don't confuse a stock (debt) with a flow (income / interest). Provided bank managers spend their income from interest repayments, you can have a stable economy where everyone can repay their debts as cash flows around.
The biggest force in the economy, is the acceleration in the total level of debt. When it's accelerating, we're having a boom. When it's decelerating, we're in a slump.
Collectively spending more than we earn on credit causes a boom. Living within our means and paying off our debts causes a slump. At least when the level of debt is as high as it is these days. When you add the change in debt to GDP for the US, you can easily see the effect of the big slump in 2008.
It's not hoarding that causes deflation, or vice versa. Sure the velocity of money goes down, but that's because people are spending less than they earn and are trying to pay off their debts. They aren't just holding onto the cash.
During my lifetime, American policy has held inflation at low-but-positive values, and I think that is very good policy.
From the perspective of economic theory and policy, this vision of a capitalist economy with finance requires us to go beyond that habit of mind which Keynes described so well, the excessive reliance on the (stable) recent past as a guide to the future. The chaotic dynamics explored in this paper should warn us against accepting a period of relative tranquility in a capitalist economy as anything other than a lull before the storm. (Keen, 1995, p. 634)
Correct. ABS forces your breaks to release *after* they have already locked up. To regain control, your wheels must start spinning again to match the ground. But if you're driving on ice, that may not happen.