Also, you wouldn't use just ONE computer. the truster "server" would be like any other distributed load out there. Enough servers to handle the load, One intelligent router to shunt the load across them.
Now that I think about it, this same network would also have to maintain some other information so that an ip-loop up could be performed by the host to verify you are who you say you are.
That part is just a thought I had. My only point is that the internets distributed nature is an engineering bonus, but a security nightmare. It is this segmented nature, as you say, that prevents hosts from truly being able to trust a user that is more than one hope away at the mac/ip level.
Why should you have to buy a computer to watch netflix on demand when you are already paying for it?
False argument: I disagree with your premise. You pay for the data to be delivered to you over the internet. If you had the internet but no computer (for what ever reason) you could buy the dedicated netflix box. I already have the ability to transduce all open standard video-binary-data into a visual display. So your point, if you had one, would be moot.
Why should you pay for an internet connection when you are already paying netflix
Because all links in the chain must be satisfied. It is the needless disallowing of alternative instantiations that vexes me. If I don't have the internet, I could get it by mail. Which is how netflix started in the first place. If I didn't have a mailbox, I could get a P.O. Box.
Why should you pay for a big screen to watch it on when you are already paying netflix for the DVDs?
False implication, already discussed. I pay for the delivery in a usable form, what I do with that is up to me. Whether it be a monitor hooked up to a computer, or a TV hooked up to a dvdplayer shouldn't bother them in the least. And it doesn't.
Why should you pay for a stove, to cook the hamburger you just bought?
False argument: non-sequiter, parallel implantations exist and are not prevented. There are many ways I could cook a hamburger that exist and are not prevented due to incompetent vendor choices. I could use my grill, oven, stovetop, microwave, or hairdryer.
Why should you pay for a furnace to heat your house after you already paid for utility?
Argument is incomplete as you didn't specify what utility I paid for. If I paid for the general utility known as electricity, then I could heat my house by using any number of eletrical->thermal energy converters. If I paid for hotwater, I could run it though the furnace which came with the house, or take a hot shower.
Next:-P
I don't know why you are lashing out at me and telling me to age faster. You said that buying a windows license wasn't an issue. As a netflix member, I corrected you.
As a netflix and non-windows user, I do not like being needlessly required to have a windows license to view something as common as a movie. It falls under that implication of the idea that MPAA believes us all to be criminals. I rent movies to avoid that branding. I like to watch movies, but I don't think movies I view once to be worth the 20$ it would take to buy them; so I rent them.
Network security is a lot about segmentation, and using routers with correct setups means that you can easily filter out spoofed addresses.
I would conjecture that it is the opposite that is true. It is because of the segmentation that spoofing is so easy. Because your ability to transmit and receive information across the net is only gated by the next link, and not by a central authority. As a receiver, you can either trust the next link, or not.
It is for efficiency at the cost of security that we have network segmentation. If we really prioritized security, everycomputer would have a routable ipv6 given to them by ONE central DHCP server that you would have to sign in to. Just a thought,
...Of course you have a valid Windows XP or vista Lic but given were talking about a payment service here, the small cost of obtaining any old windows lic if you don't already have one is not really an issue.
You are wrong; that 'license' is exactly the issue. Why should I have to pay for, install, and maintain another OS, to use a video on-demand service that I already payfor? Is it because they were too lazy and stupid to implement it using an open standard? Or because the mpaa is forcing them too?
...there needs to be a Pop Band so that they know more of the songs...
Perhaps then people would realize just how simple the music is in most pop songs. I mean, if the song had a really boring guitar line, then don't you think it would be a poor choice to put in guitar hero?
Then again, that is probably secondary to the fact that the more popular a song is, the more it costs to license it. It doesn't bother me; I love the bizarre b-side songs that have been in the guitar Hero series (freezepop anyone?).
Of course you are right. Though, currently functioning businesses have much less trouble getting a loan because they have collateral and a functioning business.
Also can anyone actually explain why we should be bailing out these banks in the first place? If we want to pretend to be capitalists we have to let businesses fail from time to time, especially when they bring it upon themselves with poor business practices like risky lending, and aggressive mortgages....
It seems our whole economic system is... based on retail sales...
The model of small business is that someone gets an idea for a new-business in a place, or an old-business in a new place, and they goto the bank with this idea and say "I need you to lend me 100,000$ in startup capital." The bank then says yay/nay and the business sets up shop, hires employees, and does its best to stay alive. If banks begin to fail, this whole system fails, and the start of any new business dies. Meaning, if banks go under, it has far more reaching ramifications than say, letting the tech bubble burst. The problem spills over into all other business sectors.
Yes, it is called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act But the Clinton administration really only deserves 1/6 of the blame for allowing it to happen. The rest is distributed amongst the republicans and democracts who voted for it, the greedy companies that exploited it, and the naive fools who believed their lies.
The ferrite bead is acting as a one turn inductor in the magnetic field which acts as as a EM filter.
Normally you would place this on the last leg to the transducer (speakers), but really that depends on the amount of amplification, and the filters on the amp itself.
If you don't put it on the source -> amp line, and the amplification is high, now we have a noise that might be too loud to filter out. If you don't put it on the amp->transducer line then the noise is on an unfiltered path and could easily reach the threshold of hearing.
It also depends on the length of the wires and the envelope frequency of the noise. When the length of wire is a multiple/fraction of the wavelength than it becomes a better antenna at that frequency.
You arn't getting it. I only have space in my case for 5 drives. I can use raid 5 on 1TB drives and get 4TB of usable space. Raid 10 has to be used on an even number of drives (actually partitions) and so I could only have 2TB of on my computer. So, if I want >2TB of space on my computer, I cannot use raid 10, and so I use raid 5.
And arguing that "it is only 189$". Who are you to tell my where I should spend my money. If I can reduce my $/Gb cost with software, what kind of business man are you to tell me that is stupid.
I can't see how a raid5 byte failure would be any different than raid 10. (tell me?)
growing? well not really a factor because I couldn't really add 2 drives to my case easily.
slower? yeah, but that is why things are a trade off. slow & cheap(lower $/Gb) VS faster and more expensive.
What's more, who even uses RAID 5 anymore? I thought it was all RAID 10 and whatnot these days.
I do .
Everything is a trade off. Using the most connections I can in my tower I have 4-5 disks. Using raid 5 I lose 20-33% of the potential space while using raid 1+0 or 0+1 (aka raid 10) I lose 50%.
If you don't know that clinton/democrats were only 1/6 of the problem then I'm not sure if you read your own article. 1/6 = Democrats who always want to help the poor weather they because they "need a helping hand" 1/6 = Republicans who believed in the statistics that said people who own their house are more "invested" in the community and therefore help their community more, commit less crime etc. 1/3 = The Mortgage companies who went from feeling "forced" to offer unsafe mortgages to taking advantage of peoples hopes and dreams/ 1/3 = The people who looked at their $Z salaries and decided they could buy houses at 50 * $Z.
If you add that up you get 1 giant problem that wouldn't have been their if any of the factors had refused to go along with it.
Well I guess I should have been more specific. Republicans preach to a fiscally conservative ideology.
What happens when republican politicians get in power is another matter entirely.
Also, That only puts the president's party affiliation and not who is in control of the house/senate. Or are you implying correlation->causation? Because last I checked, the house was supposed to control the money.
And the economic boom during clinton would have helped any president. He was lucky. Though I guess I should congratulate him on not fucking up the place while he was...fucking in the place.
you would only need ipv6 if you wanted your dvd player to dim someone else's lights. There are plenty of ways people connect and control electronic things together without 2^64 addressees.
If you search "X10 lighting" you will find at least one of the many existing solutions to your problem.
We should have an extensible standard that the IANA or -someone- can flip a switch on and the routers will add another 8 bits
IANA? You are not a ____? A computer engineer.
Anyway, we should not have such a thing. Yes it would be easy in software to make such a conditional, but the high performance backbone needs to be just that. And when you add that "option" the hardware engineer needs to decide whether that condition should be done in serial (costs you in transient lag), or do all options in parallel (costs you in $$).
But it really comes down to keep.it.simple.stupid engineering. Why add complicate a standard when you can't justify it?! Your attempt at future proofing ipv# is short sighted because ipv6 will easily last 20 years, and after that noone knows. They don't know because it is impossible to predict how technology will evolve, people will adopt it, and politics will allow it in 30 years. So as an engineer you pick a point, and you say with 99.999% probability this will be good enough for X years. At which point you change it.
The obvious conclusion, supported by lots of data for those inclined to look, is that big mergers always increase efficiency and hence reduce prices for the consumer.
As someone who has worked in server provision for telcos and spent a lot of time around the baby Bells and DECHPaq, all I can say is hahahahahahahahahahahah...
In this case though, the relation to that example is a non-sequitur.
There is a huge difference between monopolies in the gas/utility market and others, because the the ability of average citizen to regulate the demand is much less. The average person drivers to work and has a phone (land or cell) and would require drastic changes to not have to have either. In contrast, the ability to cut google out of my life tomorrow would be like a new years resolution to not eat red meat: I could just stop, I'ld find another way. Consider that you don't need to search to browse to a web address you want. And for the advertisers themselves, even if google has 100% of the search market, there are always other places to advertise on and off the web.
3 - This is true. You can delete sharedobjects as long as you have a move clip visible you can click on. However, many sites have hidden flash elements that cannot be seen or clicked on. These sites can set data.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I never said it was perfect :-)
Also, you wouldn't use just ONE computer. the truster "server" would be like any other distributed load out there. Enough servers to handle the load, One intelligent router to shunt the load across them.
Now that I think about it, this same network would also have to maintain some other information so that an ip-loop up could be performed by the host to verify you are who you say you are.
That part is just a thought I had. My only point is that the internets distributed nature is an engineering bonus, but a security nightmare. It is this segmented nature, as you say, that prevents hosts from truly being able to trust a user that is more than one hope away at the mac/ip level.
Dear Troll,
I'll bite.
Why should you have to buy a computer to watch netflix on demand when you are already paying for it?
False argument: I disagree with your premise.
You pay for the data to be delivered to you over the internet. If you had the internet but no computer (for what ever reason) you could buy the dedicated netflix box. I already have the ability to transduce all open standard video-binary-data into a visual display. So your point, if you had one, would be moot.
Why should you pay for an internet connection when you are already paying netflix
Because all links in the chain must be satisfied. It is the needless disallowing of alternative instantiations that vexes me. If I don't have the internet, I could get it by mail. Which is how netflix started in the first place. If I didn't have a mailbox, I could get a P.O. Box.
Why should you pay for a big screen to watch it on when you are already paying netflix for the DVDs?
False implication, already discussed. I pay for the delivery in a usable form, what I do with that is up to me. Whether it be a monitor hooked up to a computer, or a TV hooked up to a dvdplayer shouldn't bother them in the least. And it doesn't.
Why should you pay for a stove, to cook the hamburger you just bought?
False argument: non-sequiter, parallel implantations exist and are not prevented.
There are many ways I could cook a hamburger that exist and are not prevented due to incompetent vendor choices. I could use my grill, oven, stovetop, microwave, or hairdryer.
Why should you pay for a furnace to heat your house after you already paid for utility?
Argument is incomplete as you didn't specify what utility I paid for. If I paid for the general utility known as electricity, then I could heat my house by using any number of eletrical->thermal energy converters. If I paid for hotwater, I could run it though the furnace which came with the house, or take a hot shower.
Next :-P
I don't know why you are lashing out at me and telling me to age faster. You said that buying a windows license wasn't an issue. As a netflix member, I corrected you.
As a netflix and non-windows user, I do not like being needlessly required to have a windows license to view something as common as a movie. It falls under that implication of the idea that MPAA believes us all to be criminals. I rent movies to avoid that branding. I like to watch movies, but I don't think movies I view once to be worth the 20$ it would take to buy them; so I rent them.
Network security is a lot about segmentation, and using routers with correct setups means that you can easily filter out spoofed addresses.
I would conjecture that it is the opposite that is true.
It is because of the segmentation that spoofing is so easy. Because your ability to transmit and receive information across the net is only gated by the next link, and not by a central authority. As a receiver, you can either trust the next link, or not.
It is for efficiency at the cost of security that we have network segmentation. If we really prioritized security, everycomputer would have a routable ipv6 given to them by ONE central DHCP server that you would have to sign in to.
Just a thought,
Except that the only moonlight installation I've seen (from http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/index.aspx), explicitly says:
"Note: These are currently built without multimedia support. No video or mp3 playback is enabled on these binaries."
I know what that means, but I don't know why. Is it legal or technical?
...Of course you have a valid Windows XP or vista Lic but given were talking about a payment service here, the small cost of obtaining any old windows lic if you don't already have one is not really an issue.
You are wrong; that 'license' is exactly the issue. Why should I have to pay for, install, and maintain another OS, to use a video on-demand service that I already payfor? Is it because they were too lazy and stupid to implement it using an open standard? Or because the mpaa is forcing them too?
I think my wife and the police would notice the age difference.
...there needs to be a Pop Band so that they know more of the songs...
Perhaps then people would realize just how simple the music is in most pop songs.
I mean, if the song had a really boring guitar line, then don't you think it would be a poor choice to put in guitar hero?
Then again, that is probably secondary to the fact that the more popular a song is, the more it costs to license it. It doesn't bother me; I love the bizarre b-side songs that have been in the guitar Hero series (freezepop anyone?).
hear, hear! Just don't get too trigger-happy, I've accidentally killed my background before... :-(
But that isn't as bad as when I accidentally hit ctl-alt-bksp instead of atl-alt-esc. All I could think was "FAILURE."
That appears to only be 43% true.
http://www.hardcoreware.net/playstation-3-80gbs-ps2-backwards-compatibility-sucks/
It's not just new businesses which need banks. ...
Of course you are right. Though, currently functioning businesses have much less trouble getting a loan because they have collateral and a functioning business.
Also can anyone actually explain why we should be bailing out these banks in the first place? If we want to pretend to be capitalists we have to let businesses fail from time to time, especially when they bring it upon themselves with poor business practices like risky lending, and aggressive mortgages. ...
It seems our whole economic system is ... based on retail sales ...
The model of small business is that someone gets an idea for a new-business in a place, or an old-business in a new place, and they goto the bank with this idea and say "I need you to lend me 100,000$ in startup capital." The bank then says yay/nay and the business sets up shop, hires employees, and does its best to stay alive. If banks begin to fail, this whole system fails, and the start of any new business dies.
Meaning, if banks go under, it has far more reaching ramifications than say, letting the tech bubble burst. The problem spills over into all other business sectors.
Yes, it is called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
But the Clinton administration really only deserves 1/6 of the blame for allowing it to happen. The rest is distributed amongst the republicans and democracts who voted for it, the greedy companies that exploited it, and the naive fools who believed their lies.
The ferrite bead is acting as a one turn inductor in the magnetic field which acts as as a EM filter.
Normally you would place this on the last leg to the transducer (speakers), but really that depends on the amount of amplification, and the filters on the amp itself.
If you don't put it on the source -> amp line, and the amplification is high, now we have a noise that might be too loud to filter out. If you don't put it on the amp->transducer line then the noise is on an unfiltered path and could easily reach the threshold of hearing.
It also depends on the length of the wires and the envelope frequency of the noise. When the length of wire is a multiple/fraction of the wavelength than it becomes a better antenna at that frequency.
So your solution to my problem is buy more drives, and more enclosures...
It is not news to me that more money can buy me better stuff.
You arn't getting it.
I only have space in my case for 5 drives. I can use raid 5 on 1TB drives and get 4TB of usable space. Raid 10 has to be used on an even number of drives (actually partitions) and so I could only have 2TB of on my computer. So, if I want >2TB of space on my computer, I cannot use raid 10, and so I use raid 5.
And arguing that "it is only 189$". Who are you to tell my where I should spend my money. If I can reduce my $/Gb cost with software, what kind of business man are you to tell me that is stupid.
I can't see how a raid5 byte failure would be any different than raid 10. (tell me?)
growing? well not really a factor because I couldn't really add 2 drives to my case easily.
slower? yeah, but that is why things are a trade off. slow & cheap(lower $/Gb) VS faster and more expensive.
What's more, who even uses RAID 5 anymore? I thought it was all RAID 10 and whatnot these days.
I do .
Everything is a trade off. Using the most connections I can in my tower I have 4-5 disks. Using raid 5 I lose 20-33% of the potential space while using raid 1+0 or 0+1 (aka raid 10) I lose 50%.
Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?
I don't know, but then again, "Do you hate homosexuals?" isn't really the best conversation starter with a new friend.
If you don't know that clinton/democrats were only 1/6 of the problem then I'm not sure if you read your own article.
1/6 = Democrats who always want to help the poor weather they because they "need a helping hand"
1/6 = Republicans who believed in the statistics that said people who own their house are more "invested" in the community and therefore help their community more, commit less crime etc.
1/3 = The Mortgage companies who went from feeling "forced" to offer unsafe mortgages to taking advantage of peoples hopes and dreams/
1/3 = The people who looked at their $Z salaries and decided they could buy houses at 50 * $Z.
If you add that up you get 1 giant problem that wouldn't have been their if any of the factors had refused to go along with it.
Yeah I've seen that too.
Well I guess I should have been more specific. Republicans preach to a fiscally conservative ideology.
What happens when republican politicians get in power is another matter entirely.
Also, That only puts the president's party affiliation and not who is in control of the house/senate. Or are you implying correlation->causation? Because last I checked, the house was supposed to control the money.
And the economic boom during clinton would have helped any president. He was lucky. Though I guess I should congratulate him on not fucking up the place while he was...fucking in the place.
What party had the house majority again when they shutdown the government over the budget?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_shutdown_of_1995
"Ayn Rand is one for the liberals how?
Libertarian, sure. But liberal... not so much."
Yeah, either your parent post doesn't believe that republican's are typically fiscally conservative, or [s]he's never actually read Ayn Rand.
if you replace ipv6 with RFID you get the current state of things.
If all you have is a hammer, suddenly everything looks like a nail.
you would only need ipv6 if you wanted your dvd player to dim someone else's lights. There are plenty of ways people connect and control electronic things together without 2^64 addressees.
If you search "X10 lighting" you will find at least one of the many existing solutions to your problem.
We should have an extensible standard that the IANA or -someone- can flip a switch on and the routers will add another 8 bits
IANA? You are not a ____? A computer engineer.
Anyway, we should not have such a thing. Yes it would be easy in software to make such a conditional, but the high performance backbone needs to be just that. And when you add that "option" the hardware engineer needs to decide whether that condition should be done in serial (costs you in transient lag), or do all options in parallel (costs you in $$).
But it really comes down to keep.it.simple.stupid engineering. Why add complicate a standard when you can't justify it?! Your attempt at future proofing ipv# is short sighted because ipv6 will easily last 20 years, and after that noone knows. They don't know because it is impossible to predict how technology will evolve, people will adopt it, and politics will allow it in 30 years. So as an engineer you pick a point, and you say with 99.999% probability this will be good enough for X years. At which point you change it.
The obvious conclusion, supported by lots of data for those inclined to look, is that big mergers always increase efficiency and hence reduce prices for the consumer.
As someone who has worked in server provision for telcos and spent a lot of time around the baby Bells and DECHPaq, all I can say is hahahahahahahahahahahah...
In this case though, the relation to that example is a non-sequitur.
There is a huge difference between monopolies in the gas/utility market and others, because the the ability of average citizen to regulate the demand is much less. The average person drivers to work and has a phone (land or cell) and would require drastic changes to not have to have either.
In contrast, the ability to cut google out of my life tomorrow would be like a new years resolution to not eat red meat: I could just stop, I'ld find another way. Consider that you don't need to search to browse to a web address you want.
And for the advertisers themselves, even if google has 100% of the search market, there are always other places to advertise on and off the web.
An ISP monopoly on the other hand...
3 - This is true. You can delete sharedobjects as long as you have a move clip visible you can click on. However, many sites have hidden flash elements that cannot be seen or clicked on. These sites can set data.
Flashblock