Plankton is not a species. Plankton means very little more than, it lives in the ocean, and it's smaller than a fish. Wipe out one species of plankton (or even dozens) and there are uncountable others that pretty much transparently step right into the same ecological niche. Happens all the time.
I think you'll find that destroying all hair follicles on the body would have less of an impact on a human than killing all plankton would have on ocean ecosystems.
Disagree because you're breaking the ecological model, you're comparing actions done to one distinct cell "species" with a vast huge family of minimally related species.
Also disagree in general about the hair, because kill the hair follicles usually means kill the animal unless that animal can harvest petroleum products or biofuels. Think of a furry wolf in the winter, suddenly gone bald. If the animal didn't need the hair, it would not evolve to waste the food to grow it. It would be a slower death than killing all the cardiac "species" or killing all the pancreatic "species", but killing the hair follicle "species" still results in the organism "ecosystem" being just as totally and utterly dead, eventually.
Vs kill one species of plankton, virtually nothing changes for every other species on the planet. Maybe it's closest relatives grow a little more, more growth means more reproduction, means more mutation, means more species, eventually.
People whom have faith in the "eco-human-body" model, know that exterminating one species means total and utter system collapse of all other species in the body, yet species extermination means no major change if it happens outside the body. Kind of like how organic and inorganic chemistry meant atoms somehow knew they were alive or not, and thus acted differently inside and outside bodies, and chemists believed this true, at least before they figured out how to synthesize urea without the involvement of life, and realized two sets of rules for atoms is not going to work. So, "species" somehow know if they are inside a human body, in which case extinction of any one "species" almost always causes utter total collapse of all other "species", vs outside the human body, in which case extinction has (obviously) never caused utter total collapse and overall has minimal impact on all other species in the planetary system.
The human-body-ecology system is really bad, because it makes few useful predictions, and at least some of the ones it makes are utterly bad and wrong, which would usually disprove a theory, except this one contains the holy phrase "eco" therefore that makes it inherently good and correct, albeit utterly non-scientific.
Your response has the tone that you disagree with me, but the argument provided shows you agree with me?
its kinda dumb to talk about ourselves as ecosystems
The dumbest part is everyone knows the only really bad part about exterminating a distinct species is listening to the environmentalists complain. The sun still rises on the rest of the living world, despite the T.Rex and the passenger pigeon being gone. Some other species steps into the empty niche. Maybe a change we like, maybe a change we don't like, but none the less life goes on mostly uninterrupted. For example, within our lifetimes, cod will be extinct, and I'll be sad, but I'll just fry something else on Fridays.
On the other hand, human bodies don't handle change like an ecosystem. Wipe out the cardiac "species" and kaboom total ecosystem collapse. The skeletal cells don't migrate into the old turf of the cardiac cells and just carry on. In fact pretty much exterminate any cell type in the system and the system collapses, with the obvious exception of "fast acting" fatal infectious disease vectors... Even "mild" diseases need to be kept around so the immune system doesn't exercise itself on the good body cells (autoimmune diseases), not to mention keeping some antibodies active in case some other/unknown/mutated disease appears.
why is it worded in such a way as to imply the different bacteria is the reason that one is obese and the other isn't, instead of the type of bacteria changed because being obese
Probably from centuries of parasite research, despite the official tone of the article being against those beliefs. "everyone knows" that given one twin with a tapeworm, and another twin without a tapeworm, the tapeworm twin is thinner because the tapeworm turns food into more tapeworm, that would otherwise turn into human fat or energy for exercise or whatever. No great stretch to apply those observations to bacteria.
Since some very high percentage by weight of fecal matter (uh, for the uneducated, that would be sh*t) is bacteria, it would stand to reason that if victim one outputs a pound of bacteria per day, and victim two outputs two pounds of bacteria per day, after eating roughly the same stuff at taco bell, victim two's body obviously got to keep less nutrition. More or less.
A far more interesting idea is bacteria actually generate some vitamins and nutrients for our bodies... I wonder if fat people have bacteria that are somewhat more effective than skinny people, thus their host has more nutritional "stuff" or at least fewer constraints, thus their host gets fat due to dramatically better vitamin levels or whatever. Then supercharge the generally better vitamin levels with just plain old more vitamins from overeating, and the waistline explodes.
Also although the article focuses on bacteria, yeasts are quite effective at turning sugar into CO2 (making the lungs work harder) and alcohol and fusel oils (making the liver work harder). So, I wonder if skinny people have too much yeast in their bodies vs too little bacteria... Or, maybe fat people eat too much sugar/carbs thus the yeast poisons them from within, making it harder to lose weight.
This kind of thinking leads to all kinds of daydreams about "fat loss pills" since we already have plenty of pills to manipulate bacteria and yeasts. Essentially, instead of adjusting the input waveform, try adjusting the gain level. The, uh, output waveform delivered to the toilet might be negatively impacted by such weird digestive modifications.
I have personally witnessed a large fishing vessel actually outrun a USCG vessel on fishieries enforcement (which was pretty funny, but it couldn't outrun the helo).
In summary, due to various wave displacement thingies (err, hydrodynamics) a ship forms two waves, one at the front and one at the back. Turns out the power required to go more than X of those wavelengths per minute scales by some crazy huge polynomial. So thats the qualitative explanation.
For a simple displacement hull, there's no way to get a USCG 100 foot boat above maybe 15 knots, whereas a 300 foot fishing boat can easily coast along at 25 knots or so. Maybe the USCG could plane some, and go somewhat faster, maybe, at immense fuel costs.
It's always kind of funny how "sailor-types" don't know these formulas, and the few that do, don't know landlubbers know them, so you get hilarious claims from some sailors about aircraft carriers that go 75 knots, but that's "top sekret info".
Obviously this does not apply to hydroplaning hulls that skip or "plane" across the surface of the water, or hydrofoils, but most "big boats" are simple displacement hulls... A hydrofoil nuclear powered aircraft carrier would be impressive. Usually those hydroplaning boats don't handle rough seas very well and don't have very long range. So simply send the robo-shipper thru storms and rough seas that it can shrug off, but would utterly swamp an inflatable or a pontoon boat or whatever it is pirates use, and floor it so the tiny pirate boats can't keep up in the long run anyway.
As a side note it's even funnier when a boat tries to outrun a navy vessel, given how fast bullets, ship to ship missiles, and torpedos move. USCG has helicopters, USN has supersonic aircraft with harpoon missiles, or barely subsonic cruise missiles....
Here's a comparison from How Stuff Works that shows wind farms killing tens of thousands of birds as compared with cars, windows, cats, and other bird risks killing tens or hundreds of millions.
Hows that compare to KFC? How about bird hunting season?
How many birds are killed from the mercury and sulfur fumes from coal plants? I know coal plants kill alot of humans, but I wonder how many birds...
Not a legal expert, so I'm honestly asking: if you give storm your money and they don't give you the services you pay for, what recourse do you have?
Don't buy their services in the future? No different than my legal recourse against any giant multinational corporation, that is, none other than don't shop there again.
Note that organized crime tends toward providing services that require repeat business. Consider their offering prostitution instead of mail order brides, or addictive drugs instead of prescription antibiotics. Even "one time scams" are actually run multiple times. So this is not exactly a new business arrangement for crooks. Isolated little trades between folks that never interact again only happen in movies and RS GTA games.
The way to run that deal, is here's 10% of the money, you get more money after you process 10% of the data, repeat nine times.
To get around the funding rules, well, that is pretty much the definition of a money laundering shell company. Regarding the original article, how does the original author know this is not the case, unless he went on site and physically touched working hardware, preferably with witnesses, etc? Maybe those guys actually wrote the....
Finally the thing I never understood about "supercomputer as a service", despite hearing about it for literally decades, is "everyone knows" that a supercomputer is merely a way to turn a compute bounded problem into an IO bounded problem. And nothing has worse IO bandwidth and latency than an outsourced service. Its great for problems that don't require any data, but what are those problems? Does the tiny little part of the solution space where it makes sense, generate enough profits to keep "supercomputer as a service" in business? My guess is, no, not long term.
line, AND it can run for more than 200 miles on a single charge
So, awesome, I can go for a Sunday drive in a fun car and feel good about it. Except that I only have a few hours for this drive (if I'm driving cautiously), and once I'm done, I'm done for the day.
If I had $100000 laying around the house to buy toys with, I think I could find a hobby more exciting than driving around town for three to six hours. Women? Booze? Both? I would also pretty much be "done for the day" after sitting in traffic for six freaking hours. Like, woo hoo, I can fill the tank and spend another three to six hours stuck in my car?
When I was a teenager, I always thought the coolest thing in the world would be to have a car of my own. Now that I have a 20 mile (half hour) commute, the last thing I want to do on my time, is plant my rear in my car for a couple more hours. I haven't been 16 since the 90s...
Agreed. I own "gitlinfamily.com" and often people would get tripped up by that name when I would tell it to them. I thought "gitlin.name" would be better... but in fact, the ".name" confuses people a hell of a lot more.
Yeah, no kidding, with your name being J Netsurfer they are probably trying to go to netsurferfamily.com
Look on the bright side, think how much easier of a time you are having than the Goatse family.
Or consider.kids, where every domain follows some list of kid-friendly policies.
Who will be the first to search project gutenberg for texts that have been banned in childrens libraries in the past (huck finn, etc) and then posts a link page on a.kids domain?
How about any sex ed related information other than that useless "abstinence is great" stuff?
All kinds of fun lawsuits when the registrar gets to make arbitrary decisions.
Food banks? Investment banks are OK (the few that are not now bankrupt) or only retail banks? Money laundering operations that are banks in name only? Payday loan joints? Local mafia loanshark?
Dead banks (example, my dear departed netbank) should have their domain pulled when their charter goes away? Or redirect somewhere? Who decides, the FDIC? Does the FDIC (or local equivalent) give the cancel / redirect order?
What if smith bank is chartered in USA and England, which is the "real" smith bank?
What about those scammers on eve online whom set up a private ISK "bank" and then took off with the dough?
Never was a nail except for the Ruby community that was in denial.
Well, yeah, no kidding. Thats because all I see is an endless circle of people repeating what they heard other people saying:
1) All the cool kids (us) know it won't scale. If you disagree, then you're not cool. Ha ha, thats our proof it doesn't scale.
2) I don't use it, never used it, never will use it, don't know anyone using it, but I am certain it won't work.
3) If it won't work on the worlds biggest websites, I can't use it on the departmental intranet, because I'm as cool as the worlds biggest website, just the world doesn't know it yet.
I can't find anything on google explaining why it "won't scale". Sometimes you can find ridiculous marketing droid babble about "tiers" but nothing technical or even logical.
No one can explain, why it matters if it can't handle the load of one of the top 10 or top 100 websites in the entire world, it therefore is utterly unacceptable on the other 99.999999999% of internet and intranet sites.
Personally, I think it's because the RoR user/devs are too busy making profitable apps to bother discussing foolishness?
Three wheelers have terrifying cornering problems. Note that you can't buy three wheeled ATVs anymore because too many people drove them like four wheeled cars and killed themselves.
But surely there are replacement wives available. So is the value of my wife in the positive things that I get from her currently, or is it only relative to the potential value of other wives, or of the freedom of having no wife at all?
Clearly, sir, you need a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Wives (RAIW). Twins (RAIW-1) are OK but RAIW-5 with lots of hot spares works better. Most admins agree that products with large rack mounts are better. A lot of hot air is generated resulting in increased cooling requirements. Also an astounding amount of noise, OSHA requires earplugs in that environment. This solution is popular in certain datacenters in Utah. Some folks claim a competing product exists, the Redundant Array of Inexpensive Girlfriends (RAIG) but everyone I've met agrees it usually ends up pretty expensive, the opposite of the original acronym, and there are often serious interoperability and EM compatibility issues. Finally w/ regards to financing there is considerable debate about rent vs purchase, short term lease vs long term lease, mileage reimbursement, etc. Rent to own agreements usually don't work out. Maintenance costs are somewhat beyond the realm of this email, but can be extraordinarily high. Anyway good luck with your network, Sir.
Maybe "forcing" is a bit strong, but ISPs should definitely be encouraged to do so. Every packet which does not go over centraliced portions of the net makes it more stable.
1) Maybe if I won't peer with him, he will hire me as an upstream and I'll make money. Extra funny if both sides try the same strategy. Even funnier if one side was recently paying the other, and now refuses and/or is going bankrupt.
2) My cheap router doesn't have enough memory/CPU/whatever to peer with EVERYONE at the IX, somebody is going to get cut. Or maybe I have the hardware, but the guy I'd like to peer with simply does not.
3) Maybe the IX charges $x for each peering connection (they gotta pay their bills somehow). So, if that peer is only worth $y of paid upstream traffic, and $x > $y, then...
4) ISP "Y" does not have enough capacity outta the IX to handle the traffic I'd like to send them. (no one ever admits in public they are the ones whom don't have a large enough pipe to the IX, its always the other guys)
5) "X"-IX is just icky and flaps all the time and drops packets. Now that is good enough for our connection to Afghanistan Telco because we can blame the problems caused by the IX, on the satellite, but our customers will not tolerate those problems when connecting to skype, so no peering for skype at that IX! Bonus points if "X"-IX is on the other side of the planet from our techs, and/or their support sucks.
6) I'm secretly a middle school girl whom runs BGP at ISP "X" (sounds like an Anime series?). Now, I heard, that she said, that he read on the bathroom wall, that the middle school girl whom runs BGP at ISP "Y" said my network sucks, so ISP "Y" is soooooo off my myspace friends list and livejournal and AIM and also I'm not inviting them to my peering party. Now personally, I believe this scenario accurately represents about 99% of all peering disputes.
couple of very skilled and knowledgeable black hats with a severely huge and well-distributed botnet who were absolutely intent on taking down the entire Internet, could probably do so using multi-pronged attacks
Well, then we're getting into definition games. If 50% of the hosts on the net were infected and flooded the other 50% who were not infected/uninfectable yeah then something like that. You're going to have a huge task to find and flood every single BGP peer connection and flood all of them.
Also bear in mind that 99.999% of attacks are perpetrated by completely incompetent amateurs.
Yeah no kidding, and the folks whom do front line BGP support know it. I know it sounds rough, but in many cases it seemed the only difference between the black hats and the customers is the customers paid us money and were at attempting to do something productive.
Thing is, though, anyone with that much skill and knowledge would have far better things to do and would probably not benefit in anyway from bringing down the whole thing.
Unless they were a government hell bent on regulating it and controlling everyone/everything...
ISPs should be forced to have to peer at any POP they join.
Forced to peer with spammers? no thanks!
Also "the internet" is mighty big. You might pull this off in one country, maybe the entire EU, but probably not the whole world. We (as a planet) can't even agree on basic human rights, much less the middle school girl game of whos gonna peer with who.
The internet is built with the BGP routing protocol, which is based on trust. You trust that your peers will advertise correct routes.
Only and exclusively amongst the tight knit community of tier 1 providers. No one accepts unfiltered routes from their customers. (except for unintentional mistakes).
Also, You Tube is not "the internet" as in "the entire internet". Good luck advertising a 0/0 route, even amongst tier 1 ISPs.
BGP by design trusts in routing settings being honest... just program a router with can't-get-there-from-here routes, and you'll down the surrounding area's Internet speed, or even connections.
No, no one trusts their peers anymore and their configs reflect that. Not since at least the 90s. Since before I started doing BGP support, everyone has filtered their customers routes. WAY WAY too many people try to redistribute 10/8 from their IGP, or maybe try to send us a 0/0. And unscientifically, I'd say about 25% of newbie BGP admins think they own their previous ISPs IP space... so if old ISP gave them 1.2.3/24 they'd ask us to modify our filters to allow the/24, we'd check (have to check each and every customer every time) and see its part of their old ISP's/18, and we'd educate them.
Sounds like somebody not involved in actual BGP work and/or just scaremongering (worship me because I say scary things).
Nobody configures their peers using dns addresses. Doesn't everyone use md5 hashes? Doesn't everyone filter their customers routes?
I did "most of" the customer side BGP at an ISP for "years" with quite a few customers... if every time someone redistributed 0/0 or 10/8 to us we took down the internet, frankly, it would have been down most of the time. Not to mention people whom thought their old providers IP space was their own (as opposed to actual ARIN space)
Then there's the guys who prepend like a hundred times, always good for a laugh or two.
Folks whom think they can take down global BGP by flapping their routes a couple times and don't even know what route dampening is... well...
Now, yeah, one bad dude could take over one router and maybe temporarily down one ISP that is run by fools who don't follow the "rules", but one badly run ISP out of bazillions is not "the internet".
Overall, I'd say out of 30K AS, of which at least 50% don't really know what they're doing, yet they still can't take the sucker down, god knows I've seen everything tried at least once, so a couple black hats don't even have a chance.
I suspect this can be done by minicom called from a cron job. Not really my area of expertise, has anyone else actually completely automated a task like this?
I honestly have no idea what kind of system I was logging into, I just know that I was told they were unable to automate the process, so there needed to be a warm body to run the commands.
I did something remarkably similar in the early 90s, until I wrote a nice semi-automated procomm script. As I recall I got it down to selecting a different "dialup number" for each file, hitting enter, and waiting for it to complete the rather elaborate process as I watched, and then started the next one. Or maybe it was Telix. Although it was cool to program, it actually de-evolved my job from lots of typing to literally, "alt-d, scroll down to the next one, hit enter, wait". Anyway after several months, I was rather tired of it all, got a new job, and informed my literally astounded cow orkers about my script (astounded like, mouth hanging open). Boss offered me a better job and more money, but new boss was already expecting me, new job looked like more fun anyway, etc.
It was a VERY large mainframe oriented company, and despite it being the mid 90s, they still did not institutionally understand it was possible to "program" one of those little PC things. Seriously!
Slashdot Mirror
kill all plankton. see what happens.
Plankton is not a species. Plankton means very little more than, it lives in the ocean, and it's smaller than a fish. Wipe out one species of plankton (or even dozens) and there are uncountable others that pretty much transparently step right into the same ecological niche. Happens all the time.
I think you'll find that destroying all hair follicles on the body would have less of an impact on a human than killing all plankton would have on ocean ecosystems.
Disagree because you're breaking the ecological model, you're comparing actions done to one distinct cell "species" with a vast huge family of minimally related species.
Also disagree in general about the hair, because kill the hair follicles usually means kill the animal unless that animal can harvest petroleum products or biofuels. Think of a furry wolf in the winter, suddenly gone bald. If the animal didn't need the hair, it would not evolve to waste the food to grow it. It would be a slower death than killing all the cardiac "species" or killing all the pancreatic "species", but killing the hair follicle "species" still results in the organism "ecosystem" being just as totally and utterly dead, eventually.
Vs kill one species of plankton, virtually nothing changes for every other species on the planet. Maybe it's closest relatives grow a little more, more growth means more reproduction, means more mutation, means more species, eventually.
People whom have faith in the "eco-human-body" model, know that exterminating one species means total and utter system collapse of all other species in the body, yet species extermination means no major change if it happens outside the body. Kind of like how organic and inorganic chemistry meant atoms somehow knew they were alive or not, and thus acted differently inside and outside bodies, and chemists believed this true, at least before they figured out how to synthesize urea without the involvement of life, and realized two sets of rules for atoms is not going to work. So, "species" somehow know if they are inside a human body, in which case extinction of any one "species" almost always causes utter total collapse of all other "species", vs outside the human body, in which case extinction has (obviously) never caused utter total collapse and overall has minimal impact on all other species in the planetary system.
The human-body-ecology system is really bad, because it makes few useful predictions, and at least some of the ones it makes are utterly bad and wrong, which would usually disprove a theory, except this one contains the holy phrase "eco" therefore that makes it inherently good and correct, albeit utterly non-scientific.
Your response has the tone that you disagree with me, but the argument provided shows you agree with me?
its kinda dumb to talk about ourselves as ecosystems
The dumbest part is everyone knows the only really bad part about exterminating a distinct species is listening to the environmentalists complain. The sun still rises on the rest of the living world, despite the T.Rex and the passenger pigeon being gone. Some other species steps into the empty niche. Maybe a change we like, maybe a change we don't like, but none the less life goes on mostly uninterrupted. For example, within our lifetimes, cod will be extinct, and I'll be sad, but I'll just fry something else on Fridays.
On the other hand, human bodies don't handle change like an ecosystem. Wipe out the cardiac "species" and kaboom total ecosystem collapse. The skeletal cells don't migrate into the old turf of the cardiac cells and just carry on. In fact pretty much exterminate any cell type in the system and the system collapses, with the obvious exception of "fast acting" fatal infectious disease vectors... Even "mild" diseases need to be kept around so the immune system doesn't exercise itself on the good body cells (autoimmune diseases), not to mention keeping some antibodies active in case some other/unknown/mutated disease appears.
why is it worded in such a way as to imply the different bacteria is the reason that one is obese and the other isn't, instead of the type of bacteria changed because being obese
Probably from centuries of parasite research, despite the official tone of the article being against those beliefs. "everyone knows" that given one twin with a tapeworm, and another twin without a tapeworm, the tapeworm twin is thinner because the tapeworm turns food into more tapeworm, that would otherwise turn into human fat or energy for exercise or whatever. No great stretch to apply those observations to bacteria.
Since some very high percentage by weight of fecal matter (uh, for the uneducated, that would be sh*t) is bacteria, it would stand to reason that if victim one outputs a pound of bacteria per day, and victim two outputs two pounds of bacteria per day, after eating roughly the same stuff at taco bell, victim two's body obviously got to keep less nutrition. More or less.
A far more interesting idea is bacteria actually generate some vitamins and nutrients for our bodies... I wonder if fat people have bacteria that are somewhat more effective than skinny people, thus their host has more nutritional "stuff" or at least fewer constraints, thus their host gets fat due to dramatically better vitamin levels or whatever. Then supercharge the generally better vitamin levels with just plain old more vitamins from overeating, and the waistline explodes.
Also although the article focuses on bacteria, yeasts are quite effective at turning sugar into CO2 (making the lungs work harder) and alcohol and fusel oils (making the liver work harder). So, I wonder if skinny people have too much yeast in their bodies vs too little bacteria... Or, maybe fat people eat too much sugar/carbs thus the yeast poisons them from within, making it harder to lose weight.
This kind of thinking leads to all kinds of daydreams about "fat loss pills" since we already have plenty of pills to manipulate bacteria and yeasts. Essentially, instead of adjusting the input waveform, try adjusting the gain level. The, uh, output waveform delivered to the toilet might be negatively impacted by such weird digestive modifications.
I have personally witnessed a large fishing vessel actually outrun a USCG vessel on fishieries enforcement (which was pretty funny, but it couldn't outrun the helo).
No great achievement there. Check out:
http://www.solarnavigator.net/hull_speed.htm
Or google for similar.
In summary, due to various wave displacement thingies (err, hydrodynamics) a ship forms two waves, one at the front and one at the back. Turns out the power required to go more than X of those wavelengths per minute scales by some crazy huge polynomial. So thats the qualitative explanation.
For a simple displacement hull, there's no way to get a USCG 100 foot boat above maybe 15 knots, whereas a 300 foot fishing boat can easily coast along at 25 knots or so. Maybe the USCG could plane some, and go somewhat faster, maybe, at immense fuel costs.
It's always kind of funny how "sailor-types" don't know these formulas, and the few that do, don't know landlubbers know them, so you get hilarious claims from some sailors about aircraft carriers that go 75 knots, but that's "top sekret info".
Obviously this does not apply to hydroplaning hulls that skip or "plane" across the surface of the water, or hydrofoils, but most "big boats" are simple displacement hulls... A hydrofoil nuclear powered aircraft carrier would be impressive. Usually those hydroplaning boats don't handle rough seas very well and don't have very long range. So simply send the robo-shipper thru storms and rough seas that it can shrug off, but would utterly swamp an inflatable or a pontoon boat or whatever it is pirates use, and floor it so the tiny pirate boats can't keep up in the long run anyway.
As a side note it's even funnier when a boat tries to outrun a navy vessel, given how fast bullets, ship to ship missiles, and torpedos move. USCG has helicopters, USN has supersonic aircraft with harpoon missiles, or barely subsonic cruise missiles....
Here's a comparison from How Stuff Works that shows wind farms killing tens of thousands of birds as compared with cars, windows, cats, and other bird risks killing tens or hundreds of millions.
Hows that compare to KFC? How about bird hunting season?
How many birds are killed from the mercury and sulfur fumes from coal plants? I know coal plants kill alot of humans, but I wonder how many birds...
That's because they're NOT pirates, except in the most strict of senses (Meaning in the verb sense of the word "To attack and rob (a ship at sea)").
These people are KIDNAPPERS. They hold the CREW hostage until they're paid off.
You also got it wrong. Everyone knows pirates download mp3s off the internet. And warez too.
Not a legal expert, so I'm honestly asking: if you give storm your money and they don't give you the services you pay for, what recourse do you have?
Don't buy their services in the future? No different than my legal recourse against any giant multinational corporation, that is, none other than don't shop there again.
Note that organized crime tends toward providing services that require repeat business. Consider their offering prostitution instead of mail order brides, or addictive drugs instead of prescription antibiotics. Even "one time scams" are actually run multiple times. So this is not exactly a new business arrangement for crooks. Isolated little trades between folks that never interact again only happen in movies and RS GTA games.
The way to run that deal, is here's 10% of the money, you get more money after you process 10% of the data, repeat nine times.
To get around the funding rules, well, that is pretty much the definition of a money laundering shell company. Regarding the original article, how does the original author know this is not the case, unless he went on site and physically touched working hardware, preferably with witnesses, etc? Maybe those guys actually wrote the ....
Finally the thing I never understood about "supercomputer as a service", despite hearing about it for literally decades, is "everyone knows" that a supercomputer is merely a way to turn a compute bounded problem into an IO bounded problem. And nothing has worse IO bandwidth and latency than an outsourced service. Its great for problems that don't require any data, but what are those problems? Does the tiny little part of the solution space where it makes sense, generate enough profits to keep "supercomputer as a service" in business? My guess is, no, not long term.
line, AND it can run for more than 200 miles on a single charge
So, awesome, I can go for a Sunday drive in a fun car and feel good about it. Except that I only have a few hours for this drive (if I'm driving cautiously), and once I'm done, I'm done for the day.
If I had $100000 laying around the house to buy toys with, I think I could find a hobby more exciting than driving around town for three to six hours. Women? Booze? Both? I would also pretty much be "done for the day" after sitting in traffic for six freaking hours. Like, woo hoo, I can fill the tank and spend another three to six hours stuck in my car?
When I was a teenager, I always thought the coolest thing in the world would be to have a car of my own. Now that I have a 20 mile (half hour) commute, the last thing I want to do on my time, is plant my rear in my car for a couple more hours. I haven't been 16 since the 90s...
Agreed. I own "gitlinfamily.com" and often people would get tripped up by that name when I would tell it to them. I thought "gitlin.name" would be better... but in fact, the ".name" confuses people a hell of a lot more.
Yeah, no kidding, with your name being J Netsurfer they are probably trying to go to netsurferfamily.com
Look on the bright side, think how much easier of a time you are having than the Goatse family.
Or consider .kids, where every domain follows some list of kid-friendly policies.
Who will be the first to search project gutenberg for texts that have been banned in childrens libraries in the past (huck finn, etc) and then posts a link page on a .kids domain?
How about any sex ed related information other than that useless "abstinence is great" stuff?
How about any drug related info?
Can't wait to see the lawsuits fly on that one.
All kinds of fun lawsuits when the registrar gets to make arbitrary decisions.
Food banks? Investment banks are OK (the few that are not now bankrupt) or only retail banks? Money laundering operations that are banks in name only? Payday loan joints? Local mafia loanshark?
Dead banks (example, my dear departed netbank) should have their domain pulled when their charter goes away? Or redirect somewhere? Who decides, the FDIC? Does the FDIC (or local equivalent) give the cancel / redirect order?
What if smith bank is chartered in USA and England, which is the "real" smith bank?
What about those scammers on eve online whom set up a private ISK "bank" and then took off with the dough?
Who gets to buy piggy.bank?
Never was a nail except for the Ruby community that was in denial.
Well, yeah, no kidding. Thats because all I see is an endless circle of people repeating what they heard other people saying:
1) All the cool kids (us) know it won't scale. If you disagree, then you're not cool. Ha ha, thats our proof it doesn't scale.
2) I don't use it, never used it, never will use it, don't know anyone using it, but I am certain it won't work.
3) If it won't work on the worlds biggest websites, I can't use it on the departmental intranet, because I'm as cool as the worlds biggest website, just the world doesn't know it yet.
I can't find anything on google explaining why it "won't scale". Sometimes you can find ridiculous marketing droid babble about "tiers" but nothing technical or even logical.
No one can explain, why it matters if it can't handle the load of one of the top 10 or top 100 websites in the entire world, it therefore is utterly unacceptable on the other 99.999999999% of internet and intranet sites.
Personally, I think it's because the RoR user/devs are too busy making profitable apps to bother discussing foolishness?
Three wheelers have terrifying cornering problems. Note that you can't buy three wheeled ATVs anymore because too many people drove them like four wheeled cars and killed themselves.
The funniest part of your post was using a ip version 4 address in your header but referencing the early days.
Check out RFC 208 to see how addressing was actually done in the old days.
6 bits of IMP (essentially the network address)
2 bits of host
8 bits total.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc208
But surely there are replacement wives available. So is the value of my wife in the positive things that I get from her currently, or is it only relative to the potential value of other wives, or of the freedom of having no wife at all?
Clearly, sir, you need a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Wives (RAIW). Twins (RAIW-1) are OK but RAIW-5 with lots of hot spares works better. Most admins agree that products with large rack mounts are better. A lot of hot air is generated resulting in increased cooling requirements. Also an astounding amount of noise, OSHA requires earplugs in that environment. This solution is popular in certain datacenters in Utah. Some folks claim a competing product exists, the Redundant Array of Inexpensive Girlfriends (RAIG) but everyone I've met agrees it usually ends up pretty expensive, the opposite of the original acronym, and there are often serious interoperability and EM compatibility issues. Finally w/ regards to financing there is considerable debate about rent vs purchase, short term lease vs long term lease, mileage reimbursement, etc. Rent to own agreements usually don't work out. Maintenance costs are somewhat beyond the realm of this email, but can be extraordinarily high. Anyway good luck with your network, Sir.
UUCP, fidonet, and WWIV BBS back from the grave!
Dare I suggest DECnet?
Maybe "forcing" is a bit strong, but ISPs should definitely be encouraged to do so. Every packet which does not go over centraliced portions of the net makes it more stable.
1) Maybe if I won't peer with him, he will hire me as an upstream and I'll make money. Extra funny if both sides try the same strategy. Even funnier if one side was recently paying the other, and now refuses and/or is going bankrupt.
2) My cheap router doesn't have enough memory/CPU/whatever to peer with EVERYONE at the IX, somebody is going to get cut. Or maybe I have the hardware, but the guy I'd like to peer with simply does not.
3) Maybe the IX charges $x for each peering connection (they gotta pay their bills somehow). So, if that peer is only worth $y of paid upstream traffic, and $x > $y, then ...
4) ISP "Y" does not have enough capacity outta the IX to handle the traffic I'd like to send them. (no one ever admits in public they are the ones whom don't have a large enough pipe to the IX, its always the other guys)
5) "X"-IX is just icky and flaps all the time and drops packets. Now that is good enough for our connection to Afghanistan Telco because we can blame the problems caused by the IX, on the satellite, but our customers will not tolerate those problems when connecting to skype, so no peering for skype at that IX! Bonus points if "X"-IX is on the other side of the planet from our techs, and/or their support sucks.
6) I'm secretly a middle school girl whom runs BGP at ISP "X" (sounds like an Anime series?). Now, I heard, that she said, that he read on the bathroom wall, that the middle school girl whom runs BGP at ISP "Y" said my network sucks, so ISP "Y" is soooooo off my myspace friends list and livejournal and AIM and also I'm not inviting them to my peering party. Now personally, I believe this scenario accurately represents about 99% of all peering disputes.
How about every ISP host their own anycast-ed root server?
Its not unusual anymore (since, like, the 90s) for ISPs to host their own NTP, why not an anycasted root?
I'm not sure there is a scalability reason to not have a zillion anycasted root servers... is there?
If, somehow, someone knocked out AT&T wisconsin's dns root, why would I know or care unless I were downstream of it?
And I can still run my own DNS server, which actually works unlike my ISPs DNS.
couple of very skilled and knowledgeable black hats with a severely huge and well-distributed botnet who were absolutely intent on taking down the entire Internet, could probably do so using multi-pronged attacks
Well, then we're getting into definition games. If 50% of the hosts on the net were infected and flooded the other 50% who were not infected/uninfectable yeah then something like that. You're going to have a huge task to find and flood every single BGP peer connection and flood all of them.
Also bear in mind that 99.999% of attacks are perpetrated by completely incompetent amateurs.
Yeah no kidding, and the folks whom do front line BGP support know it. I know it sounds rough, but in many cases it seemed the only difference between the black hats and the customers is the customers paid us money and were at attempting to do something productive.
Thing is, though, anyone with that much skill and knowledge would have far better things to do and would probably not benefit in anyway from bringing down the whole thing.
Unless they were a government hell bent on regulating it and controlling everyone/everything...
ISPs should be forced to have to peer at any POP they join.
Forced to peer with spammers? no thanks!
Also "the internet" is mighty big. You might pull this off in one country, maybe the entire EU, but probably not the whole world. We (as a planet) can't even agree on basic human rights, much less the middle school girl game of whos gonna peer with who.
The internet is built with the BGP routing protocol, which is based on trust. You trust that your peers will advertise correct routes.
Only and exclusively amongst the tight knit community of tier 1 providers. No one accepts unfiltered routes from their customers. (except for unintentional mistakes).
Also, You Tube is not "the internet" as in "the entire internet". Good luck advertising a 0/0 route, even amongst tier 1 ISPs.
BGP by design trusts in routing settings being honest... just program a router with can't-get-there-from-here routes, and you'll down the surrounding area's Internet speed, or even connections.
No, no one trusts their peers anymore and their configs reflect that. Not since at least the 90s. Since before I started doing BGP support, everyone has filtered their customers routes. WAY WAY too many people try to redistribute 10/8 from their IGP, or maybe try to send us a 0/0. And unscientifically, I'd say about 25% of newbie BGP admins think they own their previous ISPs IP space... so if old ISP gave them 1.2.3/24 they'd ask us to modify our filters to allow the /24, we'd check (have to check each and every customer every time) and see its part of their old ISP's /18, and we'd educate them.
Take BGP for example. Very little security in it.
Sounds like somebody not involved in actual BGP work and/or just scaremongering (worship me because I say scary things).
Nobody configures their peers using dns addresses. Doesn't everyone use md5 hashes? Doesn't everyone filter their customers routes?
I did "most of" the customer side BGP at an ISP for "years" with quite a few customers... if every time someone redistributed 0/0 or 10/8 to us we took down the internet, frankly, it would have been down most of the time. Not to mention people whom thought their old providers IP space was their own (as opposed to actual ARIN space)
Then there's the guys who prepend like a hundred times, always good for a laugh or two.
Folks whom think they can take down global BGP by flapping their routes a couple times and don't even know what route dampening is... well...
Now, yeah, one bad dude could take over one router and maybe temporarily down one ISP that is run by fools who don't follow the "rules", but one badly run ISP out of bazillions is not "the internet".
Overall, I'd say out of 30K AS, of which at least 50% don't really know what they're doing, yet they still can't take the sucker down, god knows I've seen everything tried at least once, so a couple black hats don't even have a chance.
I suspect this can be done by minicom called from a cron job. Not really my area of expertise, has anyone else actually completely automated a task like this?
No no no, not "suspect" you mean "expect".
http://expect.nist.gov/
Actually, "suspect" is a pretty good Infocom text adventure.
I honestly have no idea what kind of system I was logging into, I just know that I was told they were unable to automate the process, so there needed to be a warm body to run the commands.
I did something remarkably similar in the early 90s, until I wrote a nice semi-automated procomm script. As I recall I got it down to selecting a different "dialup number" for each file, hitting enter, and waiting for it to complete the rather elaborate process as I watched, and then started the next one. Or maybe it was Telix. Although it was cool to program, it actually de-evolved my job from lots of typing to literally, "alt-d, scroll down to the next one, hit enter, wait". Anyway after several months, I was rather tired of it all, got a new job, and informed my literally astounded cow orkers about my script (astounded like, mouth hanging open). Boss offered me a better job and more money, but new boss was already expecting me, new job looked like more fun anyway, etc.
It was a VERY large mainframe oriented company, and despite it being the mid 90s, they still did not institutionally understand it was possible to "program" one of those little PC things. Seriously!