Ok, so which omnipotent sky wizard do you then believe? Yahweh? El? The composite Jehova? Yeshua? Allah? Baal? Vishnu? Shiva? Buddha? Flying Spaghetti Monster? One of the ascended Emperors of Rome? The living Emperor of Japan, directly descended from Amaterasu? Amon-re? Tezcatlipoca? I can keep coming up with names that entire populations have fervently believed, with all their hearts and souls, were divine beings.
Really good point. Maybe that's why Pascal's Wager isn't often referenced.
Do you really want to spend eternity cooped up in a castle with a supreme being who would send you to eternal torment because you didn't believe in him, after being presented with no evidence?
Pascal's wager assumes belief gets you infinite gain. That seems highly unlikely.
I agree, I don't accept that assumption. I am just pointing out that it's not irrational thinking.
Believing in a deity as a default position because you can't prove one doesn't exist is completely irrational.
I agree that it is philosophy but it is not completely irrational. Pascal's Wager states:
Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).[1]
It is actually pretty rational to believe in God because, why not?
That said, I still identify as atheist. I can't fully get on board with the above argument because it is difficult to accept the infinite gain or loss.
Parental control: You can block websites just fine, either via DNS or IP.
Your parental control software would need to actively pull the certificate as it can't see the actual HTTP call on the network. At layer 3, it will basically just see a port 443 connection to an IP and reverse DNS does not always give you the host name of the website. It can be done, but it's certainly more difficult than raw HTTP requests.
Is it really so hard to just grind the beans and brew it yourself? I do this every morning.
I vote for a french press. Though, an AeroPress in intriguing. I can't imagine the people using Keurigs are actually saving any money over just going to a place like Dunkin' Donuts.
Spam filtering not a solution. E-mail has a monopoly on a lot of functions today. Getting accounts on most websites, getting receipts and confirmations from online purchases, recovering passwords, and countless other functions of the Internet. One thing they all have in common is that not only are they E-mail, but they are also unencrypted and can be spoofed with minimal effort.
A free market solution would be to offer more options. Automatic, universal encryption or digital signatures applied to everything genuine would be a legitimate solution to spam, and everything else gets dropped by your server. There are some minor obstacles, but if every mail server also serves the keys for the accounts it holds, it would be a simple matter to verify what current keys to accept at the recieving end.
Your post advocates a
( x ) technical ( ) legislative ( x ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( x ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( x ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( x ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( x ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( x ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( x ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( x ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( x ) Blacklists suck ( x ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( x ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( x ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I'm having trouble figuring out what purpose this is supposed to serve. What is the point of locally storing SHA512 hashes of your passwords for remote systems?
It looks like a more complex much more secure version of:
Main password: pass123 Google password: googlepass123 eBay password: ebaypass123
So this generates a unique password for each site that you use based on a memorable set of information.
In my neighborhood, our mailboxes are in clusters of 4. They look mostly like a standard mailbox otherwise. The support to hold them up broke on ours and I'm not sure who is supposed to fix it. Do I get together with my 3 other neighbors (I don't know them well) and ask them to pool money together to fix it? It would be different if it were on my property, but it isn't.
And just to back up my claim... here's a link to their prices... although it says it's a "special"... it's the same price they've been charging since the 1st of the year...
The source of the problem on the Yorktown was that bad data was fed into an application running on one of the 16 computers on the LAN. The data contained a zero where it shouldn't have, and when the software attempted to divide by zero, a buffer overrun occurred -- crashing the entire network and causing the ship to lose control of its propulsion system.
Does OSM have traffic information as well? Even if they have the major roads, does it have the arterial streets like Google does? I use that information extensively on my commute.
Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture, the second sentence is simply not true. The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet. NAT breaks so many things...
I'm not really sure where you get the idea that you can only use 30-50 computers on a single public IP. I can guarantee if you use enterprise-grade firewalls to do the NAT'ing you have no problem going into the thousands of clients.
Chrysler recently announced they were on Twitter, but the name was ChryslerCom or something like that. Squatters beat them to their own name. That's the problem with unique usernames, though. I mean, say your name (because your parents are insensitive clods) actually *is* Chevy... Should you be prevented from being "Chevy" online because a car company holds a trademark on that name? Is it really fair for the courts to just take something away from you and give it to a rich corporation?
I agree with the warranty thing because ATI supported my card when the fan blew, but I have an honest question. Does nVidia only make chipsets now? Do they not actually manufacture a single card?
I personally think that the Locate me feature is kinda cool. It may be useless, but much of the internet is. Plus, if it is only going by your IP, it can really only tell you where your ISP is located, not your actual location unless you own your IP.
Anyway, I don't think that the Windows key is unique, is it?
A tv attached to your computer also works well for this sort of thing.
It does, but the resolution on a TV is so poor that text is unreadable. Not to mention having a basically still image on your TV is not exactly good...
Some people say it's easy. They use the technique for still images and apply it frame-by-frame. The problem is, if you do this, the images jump all over the place. The background shakes around a lot, and each frame looks like a different drawing.
I would like to see that too, but I don't think it would look good. This technique is a lot smoother.
One would think that you could put linux on it, as long as you have a PCMCIA cd rom or something. If it is a full fledged computer, it should be able to run anything. The problem is getting drivers.
When it comes to market, the chip will likely be sold to consumers as a co-processor -- an add-on PCI card that works in parallel with a PC's main processor
It's not replacing our current processors. It is just helping them with intensive floating-point calculations. Is that really going to be helpful to the average user?
Keith
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so which omnipotent sky wizard do you then believe? Yahweh? El? The composite Jehova? Yeshua? Allah? Baal? Vishnu? Shiva? Buddha? Flying Spaghetti Monster? One of the ascended Emperors of Rome? The living Emperor of Japan, directly descended from Amaterasu? Amon-re? Tezcatlipoca? I can keep coming up with names that entire populations have fervently believed, with all their hearts and souls, were divine beings.
Really good point. Maybe that's why Pascal's Wager isn't often referenced.
Do you really want to spend eternity cooped up in a castle with a supreme being who would send you to eternal torment because you didn't believe in him, after being presented with no evidence?
Pascal's wager assumes belief gets you infinite gain. That seems highly unlikely.
I agree, I don't accept that assumption. I am just pointing out that it's not irrational thinking.
Athiesm is philosophy, not science.
Believing in a deity as a default position because you can't prove one doesn't exist is completely irrational.
I agree that it is philosophy but it is not completely irrational. Pascal's Wager states:
Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).[1]
It is actually pretty rational to believe in God because, why not?
That said, I still identify as atheist. I can't fully get on board with the above argument because it is difficult to accept the infinite gain or loss.
Parental control: You can block websites just fine, either via DNS or IP.
Your parental control software would need to actively pull the certificate as it can't see the actual HTTP call on the network. At layer 3, it will basically just see a port 443 connection to an IP and reverse DNS does not always give you the host name of the website. It can be done, but it's certainly more difficult than raw HTTP requests.
Isn't the standard deviation of IQ 7 points? Is 6 points actually statistically significant?
Is it really so hard to just grind the beans and brew it yourself? I do this every morning.
I vote for a french press. Though, an AeroPress in intriguing. I can't imagine the people using Keurigs are actually saving any money over just going to a place like Dunkin' Donuts.
Admittedly, that was actually pretty funny.
Spam filtering not a solution. E-mail has a monopoly on a lot of functions today. Getting accounts on most websites, getting receipts and confirmations from online purchases, recovering passwords, and countless other functions of the Internet. One thing they all have in common is that not only are they E-mail, but they are also unencrypted and can be spoofed with minimal effort.
A free market solution would be to offer more options. Automatic, universal encryption or digital signatures applied to everything genuine would be a legitimate solution to spam, and everything else gets dropped by your server. There are some minor obstacles, but if every mail server also serves the keys for the accounts it holds, it would be a simple matter to verify what current keys to accept at the recieving end.
Your post advocates a
( x ) technical ( ) legislative ( x ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( x ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( x ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( x ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( x ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( x ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( x ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( x ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( x ) Blacklists suck
( x ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( x ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( x ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
I was wondering if anyone was injured. Since the summary didn't mention it I had to RTFA:
I would think this would be an important part of reporting about a fire.
I'm having trouble figuring out what purpose this is supposed to serve. What is the point of locally storing SHA512 hashes of your passwords for remote systems?
It looks like a more complex much more secure version of:
Main password:
pass123
Google password:
googlepass123
eBay password:
ebaypass123
So this generates a unique password for each site that you use based on a memorable set of information.
In my neighborhood, our mailboxes are in clusters of 4. They look mostly like a standard mailbox otherwise. The support to hold them up broke on ours and I'm not sure who is supposed to fix it. Do I get together with my 3 other neighbors (I don't know them well) and ask them to pool money together to fix it? It would be different if it were on my property, but it isn't.
Until I figure it out, I'll just leave it alone.
And just to back up my claim... here's a link to their prices... although it says it's a "special"... it's the same price they've been charging since the 1st of the year...
http://www.invergrovetoyota.com/specials/service.htm#.UYf44kriJHA
That's a really good price. Normally people change their water pump while they are at it, which increases the price a bit.
Source: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/07/13987
Does OSM have traffic information as well? Even if they have the major roads, does it have the arterial streets like Google does? I use that information extensively on my commute.
Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture, the second sentence is simply not true. The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet. NAT breaks so many things...
I'm not really sure where you get the idea that you can only use 30-50 computers on a single public IP. I can guarantee if you use enterprise-grade firewalls to do the NAT'ing you have no problem going into the thousands of clients.
Chrysler recently announced they were on Twitter, but the name was ChryslerCom or something like that. Squatters beat them to their own name. That's the problem with unique usernames, though. I mean, say your name (because your parents are insensitive clods) actually *is* Chevy... Should you be prevented from being "Chevy" online because a car company holds a trademark on that name? Is it really fair for the courts to just take something away from you and give it to a rich corporation?
No, apparently it's not fair. See http://www.nissan.com/
Unique IP? I think? Just a guess from context...
I agree with the warranty thing because ATI supported my card when the fan blew, but I have an honest question. Does nVidia only make chipsets now? Do they not actually manufacture a single card?
I personally think that the Locate me feature is kinda cool. It may be useless, but much of the internet is. Plus, if it is only going by your IP, it can really only tell you where your ISP is located, not your actual location unless you own your IP.
Anyway, I don't think that the Windows key is unique, is it?
A tv attached to your computer also works well for this sort of thing.
It does, but the resolution on a TV is so poor that text is unreadable. Not to mention having a basically still image on your TV is not exactly good...
I would like to see that too, but I don't think it would look good. This technique is a lot smoother.
The real news is what it does NOT include: no free downloads, and no indie artist community...
I'm confused. So does that double negative mean that it does include free downloads and an indie artist community?
It seems like the W is the problem outside the US. Inside the US, however, the W is still the problem. George W. anyway...
One would think that you could put linux on it, as long as you have a PCMCIA cd rom or something. If it is a full fledged computer, it should be able to run anything. The problem is getting drivers.
When it comes to market, the chip will likely be sold to consumers as a co-processor -- an add-on PCI card that works in parallel with a PC's main processor
It's not replacing our current processors. It is just helping them with intensive floating-point calculations. Is that really going to be helpful to the average user? Keith