So as a result, people post stupid stuff, or links to articles and pictures.
Twitpics and shortened URLs are the clue that people have been forced to work around a fundamentally flawed design using tools that are brute force kludges.
Why not allow any reasonable length and let people set filters on how much they want to see. That way they could skip the rants if they wanted.
The point is, its all web based, and limiting it to 140 characters was a stupid design choice which engenders vapid posts about buying purses and whats for lunch. It was designed to appeal to 18 year old girls, and its no surprise that is the average intellectual age of most posts.
Between pointless babble and self promotion mostly female posters account for 50% or more of all tweets.
Berners-Lee is far too generous in his assessment.
Someone refresh my memory on why something like twitter, starting from scratch in the smart phone era is STILL limited to 140 characters.
Originally this was designed to allow tweets to fit inside of SMS messages, but nobody does that anyway. There is no inherent why twitter should have restrictive length limits.
But that just points out that this is a nuisance suit, Apple claiming your tablet looks so much like our tablet that its hurting our sales. Every sedan looks pretty much like ever other sedan these days too. Yet the car companies seldom become petulant children and start suing each other.
Apple is trying to own a form factor, which they will never succeed at doing, and bringing this suit opens them for huge counter-suits by manufacturers that used that same form factor before Apple even dreamed up the tablet.
Iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days but Cesium-137 has a much longer half-life of 30 years. 30 years of maintaining a leaking plant that is in shambles and too hot to enter.
I'm confused: If it's above 100 c it's steam or under a huge amount of pressure; The cooling water has always been below that temperature. What does the fine article mean here?
Cold Shutdown is just a technical term.
Cold shutdown means the reactor is at a temperature where is is not producing enough heat to make steam and drive generators. That happens as it falls below 100c/212f. Its not clear to me if that state is With or Without active cooling systems running.
However, that temperature is not the goal, just some definition of a stable state that is thought to be manageable. Ideally you would like to get it to a state cold enough so that you could de-fuel it, or where you could build a sarcophagus around it as they did in Chernobyl.
Protections really don't involve browser back-offs, they relate to parsing source address data, then filtering those out so genuine traffic gets through, rather than traffic that saturates the sockets.
Exactly.
And that can't really be done at EITHER end, (browser or web server), but cries out for a middle-ground approach that can detect DDOS attack signatures and kill them off close to the source rather than forwarding them all to the target's ISP to handle.
The single ping flood is not the issue, and easily killed.
The request that appears once every two minutes from hundreds of thousands or millions of bots is very hard to distinguish from real traffic, other than the bots don't want the traffic either, and usually work some sort of corruption on the request so that it does not clog their own tubes. If the botnet owner does not care about triggering a ton of inbound traffic to each bot they just run a seemingly normal web page request over and over. This increases their chances of being detected by the ISP or the user, but makes it very hard to detect at the target.
nobody performs actual DDoS attacks with a browser. Now, this might reduce the Slashdot Effect, but not a DDoS.
Exactly.
I seriously doubt Google designed this for what TFA says it does. TFA is too busy raking Google over the coals for not building in Do-Not-Track to even understand why this may be needed by legitimate sites who just happen to get slashdotted due to massive publicity or disasters.
It does nothing for those sites under a true DOS attack, other than denying legitimate requests to that the DOS attack can continue unimpeded without those pesky legitimate requests sneaking through.
Midwestern farmers in the late 1800s in North America couldn't build farm machinery either.
But they could maintain it. The local blacksmith could repair just about anything, and even when early tractors arrived allowing you plow huge acreages, they were simple machines, and could be maintained in the field (there being no other choice). All of these machines have expired patents. The plans are probably available in John Deere's archives.
But the other part of the story you've misread, is that we are talking about Village Scale production of food. Not Mass Scale. 10 farmers and a guy who read, and another who can wield a wrench and swing a hammer can keep ancient tractors, plows, primitive seed drills, and harvesters running for a long long time with a minimal amount of tools.
Gifting the machines is what this project aims to do. The point is to not give fuel injected, computer controlled devices. Give them something they can maintain locally.
Actually, when you dig into it, the problem isn't stable governments or the lack of machinery. The major problem is lack of food storage technology, making seed crops the only thing that can be stored for more than a few weeks.
Food storage (of grain) pre-dates farming. But where is is dry enough to store large quantities of grain without some technology and knowledge, its too dry to grow such quantities. If you don't have river bottoms near much dryer areas (such as in the middle east) you need grain elevators to keep dry crops.
You need refrigeration for many crops, and pest control for all crops.
Once you teach several successive generations that going to the market to buy something wrapped in cellophane is the way food is obtained, the ability to preserve bulk harvests for months or years is quickly lost in the population.
If harvests could be reliably preserved, you would be able to feed the same population with half the acreage. Increasing production is the sloppy way to solve this problem and actually breeds more pests than people. This has been recognized in poorer countries in Africa for some time now.
Since its a single function server paid for out of the OPs OWN pocket, it belongs somewhere else than on the institutions network.
He should put it under his desk at home on his own cable modem, and use dyndns or some such. If Its just work schedules and contains no HIPAA data. It can be anywhere. Why set up your own machine, you can buy this service for dirt cheap.
On the other hand, if it truly only runs schedules, whats the problem with forking over an account for IT? The fact that there is resistance to doing so suggest there may be some internal gossip board or other motive for keeping everyone else out.
Businesses are eating billions in credit card fraud every year. This is long overdue.
Right.... but what the fuck has the got to do with me having an internet ID?
Had you bothered to read TFA you would have known that the internet ID is only used for on-line purchases, Banking, and a few other situations. It has nothing to do with you signing on to any web site to post more of your uneducated drivel or download porn.
Nobody is suggesting a rewrite of the entire anonymous culture any more than the creation of credit cards rewrote paying with cash.
OpenID may in fact server as a model for this one, but since this effort is just getting underway, no one can tell you how it is different, at least not until the first draft is out.
Its like asking how your yet to be conceived child will be different than your younger brother before you've even reached puberty.
Instead it seems to be the tech equivalent of a bunch of hippies high on weed sitting around a campfire and curing all the worlds ills by talking about them.
More like "whitehouse releases a plan to create a plan for a trusted internet ID plan"
Oh, climb down.
There has to be a start somewhere.
'the U.S. government will coordinate private-sector efforts to create trusted identification systems for the Internet
.
What part of that don't you understand?
Businesses are eating billions in credit card fraud every year. This is long overdue.
>It works both ways though: you can create an online account or forge the identity of someone else with nothing more than what is in a wallet. People dumpster dive or steal wallets, and then use the Internet to create false accounts with the information in a wallet or discarded credit application. The problems with validating identity allow a thief to turn a stolen wallet into a stolen identity, this shouldn't be possible and regulation is a good way of addressing this, for example by forbidding businesses from using SSNs as record identifiers, or requiring three-factor auth for credit transactions.
The document in the TFA proposes no central repository or government database, and proposes a private system that's only regulated by the government to prevent fraud and set minimum standards. Your characterization of the proposal is a strawman.
Exactly right. At least Somebody here gets it.
Furthermore even if a stolen wallet is used to create an identity, they couldn't use it to access your bank account, because your bank already knows that this account is locked by a different authenticated identity. You can easily prove you didn't order those 15 60-inch TVs because its not your Secure ID.
So many people here rush to judgment. Or worse, the decry this effort while propping up PGP, not realizing that it is essentially the same thing, with a more reliable web of trust. Its like having your Bank sign your PGP credentials used to purchase on-line.
And sadly, this solution wont prevent that from happening in the first place. More tax dollars to waste.
Except there are very little tax dollars involved. The effort is to be largely private.
And if you needed secure credentials to get into your yahoo account, it would certainly go a long way toward preventing it from happening in the first place. Previously all they had to do was guess your (weak) password. With this, they would need certificates/keys stored on your computer AND your password to unlock these.
Even now you can set a switch in Gmail that insists all access to it be via ssl so that your password never travels over the net in cleartext. This might be even better than that option, as one-time keys can be negotiated of any length which would be unique for each session.
However, login is not the focus of this effort. Banking and on-line purchases are.
After reading the document, there really aren't any system requirements, specific technology or any kind of actual implementation, all it really does is set out some goals and establish a certain vocabulary. It's utterly anodyne and will probably die before being considered because it sets out concrete goals for private companies that handle identifying data
Actually the more you read on it the evil less it sounds.
It requires on-device credentials (files, private keys, or some such). It transmits no-passwords, instead using one-time keys calculated and negotiated for a single use. It uses third party authentication. It requires user control of exactly which data elements are to be shared. Passwords would presumable be required to decrypt/access your own on-device credential cache.
So, basically you have something like Kerberos where any number of different private/commercial entities offer authentication services (for a fee) which can be used on any number of websites to verify authenticity and identity for purchases, banking, money transfers (NFC), etc. Your bank may enter into this business, or maybe Google, or PayPal, or your Credit Card company.
The feds are involved to establish the rules, enforce privacy, and [tinfoil] assure government backdoors [/tinfoil].
There are already private companies in the identity space (Thwate Verisign, et al) although they concentrate their efforts on the server side. These companies, and your bank, could easily move into this space.
It would be best if it could be mandated that the methods be fully public domain, visible, and open. Anything that will not withstand public scrutiny of every bit of authentication transaction code will not survive in the real world. Put 100,000 pairs of eyes on the code and it has a chance of being bullet proof.
Down side: When someone steals your smartphone and somehow obtains your password to unlock your credentials, you will be hard pressed to prove it was not YOU who emptied your bank account. But such an attack requires access to your device AND your password, as opposed to the current situation where simple knowledge of your credit card number is often enough to siphon off your funds, with some merchant eating the bulk of the loss.
This won't die, because businesses need it.
Fraud and identity theft are becoming rampant. NFC is the next big thing for phones (smartphones AND feature phones) and credit cards are notoriously insecure.
Having the government involved is a tactical mistake due to the mistrust of government agencies due to repeated abuses. It would be better to just form an open commission of banks, security experts, and user groups and credit card clearing companies and let them work it out in the OPEN.
Slashdot Mirror
So as a result, people post stupid stuff, or links to articles and pictures.
Twitpics and shortened URLs are the clue that people have been forced to work around a fundamentally flawed design using tools that are brute force kludges.
Why not allow any reasonable length and let people set filters on how much they want to see. That way they could skip the rants if they wanted.
The point is, its all web based, and limiting it to 140 characters was a stupid design choice which engenders vapid posts about buying purses and whats for lunch. It was designed to appeal to 18 year old girls, and its no surprise that is the average intellectual age of most posts.
Between pointless babble and self promotion mostly female posters account for 50% or more of all tweets.
Berners-Lee is far too generous in his assessment.
Someone refresh my memory on why something like twitter, starting from scratch in the smart phone era is STILL limited to 140 characters.
Originally this was designed to allow tweets to fit inside of SMS messages, but nobody does that anyway. There is no inherent why twitter should have restrictive length limits.
What twitter needs is a vapidity filter.
Yup, says exactly that.
But that just points out that this is a nuisance suit, Apple claiming your tablet looks so much like our tablet that its hurting our sales.
Every sedan looks pretty much like ever other sedan these days too. Yet the car companies seldom become petulant children and
start suing each other.
Apple is trying to own a form factor, which they will never succeed at doing, and bringing this suit opens them for huge counter-suits
by manufacturers that used that same form factor before Apple even dreamed up the tablet.
Iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days but Cesium-137 has a much longer half-life of 30 years.
30 years of maintaining a leaking plant that is in shambles and too hot to enter.
This says nothing about the plutonium in the other reactor.
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3906/fepc-info-sheet-414#more-1429
Take water, add a great deal of energy and a catalyst or electrical current, and you get oxygen and hydrogen.
Take oxygen and hydrogen, mix, ignite, and you get water and the heat is released.
So Water already knows this. Combustion is waters birth place.
I'm confused: If it's above 100 c it's steam or under a huge amount of pressure; The cooling water has always been below that temperature. What does the fine article mean here?
Cold Shutdown is just a technical term.
Cold shutdown means the reactor is at a temperature where is is not producing enough heat to make steam and drive generators. That happens as it falls below 100c/212f. Its not clear to me if that state is With or Without active cooling systems running.
However, that temperature is not the goal, just some definition of a stable state that is thought to be manageable. Ideally you would like to get it to a state cold enough so that you could de-fuel it, or where you could build a sarcophagus around it as they did in Chernobyl.
Your assertion then is that they have done and are doing nothing?
Pack your bags, smart ass, we are sending you over there to run into the plant and turn on the cooling pumps.
Also like when the USA takes land via imminent domain, you should still pay the landowner for it.
Um, where did you go to school?
First, its Eminent Domain, not imminent domain.
Second, by definition, the land is always paid for when taken by Eminent Domain.
Protections really don't involve browser back-offs, they relate to parsing source address data, then filtering those out so genuine traffic gets through, rather than traffic that saturates the sockets.
Exactly.
And that can't really be done at EITHER end, (browser or web server), but cries out for a middle-ground approach that can detect DDOS attack signatures and kill them off close to the source rather than forwarding them all to the target's ISP to handle.
The single ping flood is not the issue, and easily killed.
The request that appears once every two minutes from hundreds of thousands or millions of bots is very hard to distinguish from real traffic, other than the bots don't want the traffic either, and usually work some sort of corruption on the request so that it does not clog their own tubes. If the botnet owner does not care about triggering a ton of inbound traffic to each bot they just run a seemingly normal web page request over and over. This increases their chances of being detected by the ISP or the user, but makes it very hard to detect at the target.
Thomas Malthus called, and he wants his theory back.
Where does that happen?
After all, the regime has to eat too.
nobody performs actual DDoS attacks with a browser.
Now, this might reduce the Slashdot Effect, but not a DDoS.
Exactly.
I seriously doubt Google designed this for what TFA says it does. TFA is too busy raking Google over the coals for not building in Do-Not-Track to even understand why this may be needed by legitimate sites who just happen to get slashdotted due to massive publicity or disasters.
At best it might help with slashdotted sites.
It does nothing for those sites under a true DOS attack, other than denying legitimate requests to that the DOS attack can continue unimpeded without those pesky legitimate requests sneaking through.
Midwestern farmers in the late 1800s in North America couldn't build farm machinery either.
But they could maintain it. The local blacksmith could repair just about anything, and even when early tractors arrived allowing you plow huge acreages, they were simple machines, and could be maintained in the field (there being no other choice). All of these machines have expired patents. The plans are probably available in John Deere's archives.
But the other part of the story you've misread, is that we are talking about Village Scale production of food. Not Mass Scale. 10 farmers and a guy who read, and another who can wield a wrench and swing a hammer can keep ancient tractors, plows, primitive seed drills, and harvesters running for a long long time with a minimal amount of tools.
Gifting the machines is what this project aims to do. The point is to not give fuel injected, computer controlled devices. Give them something they can maintain locally.
Actually, when you dig into it, the problem isn't stable governments or the lack of machinery. The major problem is lack of food storage technology, making seed crops the only thing that can be stored for more than a few weeks.
Food storage (of grain) pre-dates farming. But where is is dry enough to store large quantities of grain without some technology and knowledge, its too dry to grow such quantities. If you don't have river bottoms near much dryer areas (such as in the middle east) you need grain elevators to keep dry crops.
You need refrigeration for many crops, and pest control for all crops.
Once you teach several successive generations that going to the market to buy something wrapped in cellophane is the way food is obtained, the ability to preserve bulk harvests for months or years is quickly lost in the population.
If harvests could be reliably preserved, you would be able to feed the same population with half the acreage. Increasing production is the sloppy way to solve this problem and actually breeds more pests than people. This has been recognized in poorer countries in Africa for some time now.
Since its a single function server paid for out of the OPs OWN pocket, it belongs somewhere else than on the institutions network.
He should put it under his desk at home on his own cable modem, and use dyndns or some such.
If Its just work schedules and contains no HIPAA data. It can be anywhere.
Why set up your own machine, you can buy this service for dirt cheap.
On the other hand, if it truly only runs schedules, whats the problem with forking over an account for IT? The fact that there is resistance to doing so suggest there may be some internal gossip board or other motive for keeping everyone else out.
Businesses are eating billions in credit card fraud every year. This is long overdue.
Right.... but what the fuck has the got to do with me having an internet ID?
Had you bothered to read TFA you would have known that the internet ID is only used for on-line purchases, Banking, and a few other situations. It has nothing to do with you signing on to any web site to post more of your uneducated drivel or download porn.
Nobody is suggesting a rewrite of the entire anonymous culture any more than the creation of credit cards rewrote paying with cash.
OpenID may in fact server as a model for this one, but since this effort is just getting underway, no one can tell you how it is different, at least not until the first draft is out.
Its like asking how your yet to be conceived child will be different than your younger brother before you've even reached puberty.
You sir are full of bull.
You have no idea how it will work (because it is not yet implemented).
Stop spreading FUD, and go educate yourself.
Instead it seems to be the tech equivalent of a bunch of hippies high on weed sitting around a campfire and curing all the worlds ills by talking about them.
More like "whitehouse releases a plan to create a plan for a trusted internet ID plan"
Oh, climb down.
There has to be a start somewhere.
'the U.S. government will coordinate private-sector efforts to create trusted identification systems for the Internet
.
What part of that don't you understand?
Businesses are eating billions in credit card fraud every year. This is long overdue.
>It works both ways though: you can create an online account or forge the identity of someone else with nothing more than what is in a wallet. People dumpster dive or steal wallets, and then use the Internet to create false accounts with the information in a wallet or discarded credit application. The problems with validating identity allow a thief to turn a stolen wallet into a stolen identity, this shouldn't be possible and regulation is a good way of addressing this, for example by forbidding businesses from using SSNs as record identifiers, or requiring three-factor auth for credit transactions.
The document in the TFA proposes no central repository or government database, and proposes a private system that's only regulated by the government to prevent fraud and set minimum standards. Your characterization of the proposal is a strawman.
Exactly right. At least Somebody here gets it.
Furthermore even if a stolen wallet is used to create an identity, they couldn't use it to access your bank account, because your bank already knows that this account is locked by a different authenticated identity. You can easily prove you didn't order those 15 60-inch TVs because its not your Secure ID.
So many people here rush to judgment. Or worse, the decry this effort while propping up PGP, not realizing that it is essentially the same thing, with a more reliable web of trust. Its like having your Bank sign your PGP credentials used to purchase on-line.
SSH, and Kerberos have been compromised multiple times, and rapidly fixed each time.
If its open source, even if your Ebay account is compromised, all they get is your Public Key and an encrypted file full of gibberish.
And sadly, this solution wont prevent that from happening in the first place. More tax dollars to waste.
Except there are very little tax dollars involved. The effort is to be largely private.
And if you needed secure credentials to get into your yahoo account, it would certainly go a long way toward preventing it from happening in the first place. Previously all they had to do was guess your (weak) password. With this, they would need certificates/keys stored on your computer AND your password to unlock these.
Even now you can set a switch in Gmail that insists all access to it be via ssl so that your password never travels over the net in cleartext. This might be even better than that option, as one-time keys can be negotiated of any length which would be unique for each session.
However, login is not the focus of this effort. Banking and on-line purchases are.
After reading the document, there really aren't any system requirements, specific technology or any kind of actual implementation, all it really does is set out some goals and establish a certain vocabulary. It's utterly anodyne and will probably die before being considered because it sets out concrete goals for private companies that handle identifying data
Actually the more you read on it the evil less it sounds.
It requires on-device credentials (files, private keys, or some such).
It transmits no-passwords, instead using one-time keys calculated and negotiated for a single use.
It uses third party authentication.
It requires user control of exactly which data elements are to be shared.
Passwords would presumable be required to decrypt/access your own on-device credential cache.
So, basically you have something like Kerberos where any number of different private/commercial entities offer authentication services (for a fee) which can be used on any number of websites to verify authenticity and identity for purchases, banking, money transfers (NFC), etc. Your bank may enter into this business, or maybe Google, or PayPal, or your Credit Card company.
The feds are involved to establish the rules, enforce privacy, and [tinfoil] assure government backdoors [/tinfoil].
There are already private companies in the identity space (Thwate Verisign, et al) although they concentrate their efforts on the server side. These companies, and your bank, could easily move into this space.
It would be best if it could be mandated that the methods be fully public domain, visible, and open. Anything that will not withstand public scrutiny of every bit of authentication transaction code will not survive in the real world. Put 100,000 pairs of eyes on the code and it has a chance of being bullet proof.
Down side: When someone steals your smartphone and somehow obtains your password to unlock your credentials, you will be hard pressed to prove it was not YOU who emptied your bank account. But such an attack requires access to your device AND your password, as opposed to the current situation where simple knowledge of your credit card number is often enough to siphon off your funds, with some merchant eating the bulk of the loss.
This won't die, because businesses need it.
Fraud and identity theft are becoming rampant. NFC is the next big thing for phones (smartphones AND feature phones) and credit cards are notoriously insecure.
Having the government involved is a tactical mistake due to the mistrust of government agencies due to repeated abuses. It would be better to just form an open commission of banks, security experts, and user groups and credit card clearing companies and let them work it out in the OPEN.
That must be why google bought Alta Vista, and then leveraged that to buy yahoo and dog pile.