And being a reasonable human being, you only saw those two options. However, these dips are taking the third unmentioned option.
They are refunding the WEBSITES directly and making it their problem to get the money back to the customer who bought the ticket. The stated goal of "We want to cause as much chaos for the [websites] as possible,"
Unless this is the only airline servicing an area, I say it's time for them to suddenly find out how quickly their bottom line would drop if they just suddenly disappeared from said sites.
When an F-16 pilot's missions regularly last 10 hours straight, maintain full situational awareness of the field rather than the "Hey, you've got some friendlys to the west, try not to kill them" approach most fighter pilots exhibit, and forces him to watch the people he's killing blow apart rather than take a quick "Bombs away, and so am I" approach, we'll call it as demanding as a UAV mission. K?
Or rather, why don't you drop the machisimo and realize that stress comes in many forms and just because the different ways an F-16 pilot is stress don't match the ways a UAV pilot is doesn't one or the other can't equal or surpass the other.
Or are you one of those dicks who thinks that physical stress is the only kind out there and people affected by mental stress should just 'rub some dirt on it and man up'?
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. (Lt.) Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he [Yossarian] observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
Well, one hopes not at least, but having grown up in the military, I could easily see one being in place.
"I think GP was referring to the fact that the above were rather articulate, and that the people who followed them were expected to be as well."
Around two hundred years have passed between then and now, and all we really remember are the honeyed words. Men were no more articulate then than now, it is simply as time has passed we've no longer are reminded of the times where they bobbled a sentence or two. Instead we've cherry picked the best of their words, the statements that resound in our hearts, and pretend that they must have spoken thusly the entire time.
And if you read some of the 'publications' put out by their respective political groups back then, the only surprise you would likely have when comparing them to today's are how much more nasty people got.
Adams was "old, querulous, Bald, blind, crippled, Toothless Adams", the Republicans he opposed were "the refuse, the sweepings of the most depraved part of mankind from the most corrupt nations on earth"
Fox News would be right at home.
And one only has to lightly peruse the history of the Alien and Sedition acts signed into law by Adams to see a parallel in the government's use of the Patriot act and it's current interpretation of law.
I'm not saying they weren't great men back then. But we've exaggerated their heights through the lens of time. These were not demi-gods. They did not shoot bolts of lighting out of their ass. They were men, wonderfully fallible men who stepped up and guided our nation the best they could.
My friend. I do believe you have a point. However, you also need to remember that we are a team. It's not about you or I, but that we have a vision. We can see a better tomorrow. A better tomorrow though Paris Hilton, the greater arbitrator.
I take it you aren't familiar with the history of our Presidential elections. If you were, you'd realize that while it's sad we are still stuck in the same muck raking environment that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson slandered each other under, it's obviously nothing new.
Given it seems everytime he sends out his talking heads to drum up support for him, they espouse opinions contrary to his platform (ok, not everytime I'm sure, but it hits the press I read often enough). I'd say he needs talking points.
She just spouts off a bunch of nonsense about a dormouse and "Feed your head". Damn hippies. You wouldn't need quantum theory to understand a true red blooded American!
Even if the asteroid is solid, and there is some 'miracle' way of anchoring the rocket to the asteroid: Landing and pushing requires the assumption that the center of gravity and the shape of the asteroid is such that you can position the rocket push in a productive manner and not just cause the rock to pinwheel or split in two.
Because it'd be highly unlikely that the asteroid is a perfect sphere. And since it's likely to be some weirdly shaped object with a wildly offset center of gravity, thowing things at it isn't a particularly effective means of control. Especially if you only have a limited number of things to throw at it.
At best, you hit it spot on and it moves the direction you want.
More than likely, you hit it off center and instead of budging it you've just caused it to pinwheel. Which has the added effect of causing it to act like a gyroscope and resist further alterations to it's vector. The more things you throw at it, the more likely the second option occurs rather than the first.
A gravity tractor on the other hand, works regardless of the shape of the asteroid.
I'm aware of what delegation is, I should be given I essentially described it in the post you replied to. I haven't been able to get it to work for me using the 'big names'.
If you can. Great. Mind posting the code? I'm fully willing to accept I may just be doing a bonehead impression when trying it.
With better resolutions, less BS moderation, and a 'better' community.
So far I really haven't seen anything more than the potential of better resolutions. They are just as free as Flikr or Youtube in "Eww, I don't like that, delete" button useage, and frankly I haven't really seen anything being hosted by them that wasn't already everywhere else. Other than a few 'name' players like Improve Everywhere using it to host their videos, there hasn't been much of a drive for me to visit it.
I wish them luck, but I have a feeling they are going to suddenly discover starting out tough on content really isn't going to help them gain market share.
If you (in the general sense) wanted to set up your authentication server to use PKI to authenticate you, there isn't anything stopping you. In fact, the details of how the authentication server 'authenticates' you are specificly left out of the specs. Meaning you can go from the extreme of not even bothering and setting up a server that just replies "yeah, it's him" all the time, to one that requires your mom to call you, asks twenty questions, and takes a blood sample.
If on the other hand, you are asking if PKI could replace OpenID, I suggest you browse their site. There is more behind OpenID than just that initial handshake, you really are comparing apples and oranges.
Especially with the "Seems like this is just..." toss off, your question is rather like asking what the difference is between a bus and a taxi. Yes they both move you places, but they both rely on slightly different ideas.
The existence and utility of one does not nullify either of these properties for the other.
PKI is a wonderful means of doing some things, but it doesn't address some of thing things OpenID does. Conversely, there are definitely places where using PKI would make far more sense than attempting to use OpenID.
In fact, given you can dovetail them nicely by using a PKI setup in your authentication server for OpenID, makes your question rather pointless.
Yes, a 'nefarious' authentication server could in fact track the services that have requested it authenticate you. Which is why if you are concerned about your privacy you compartimentalize things by having one ID for 'public' facing accounts and one for "I'm Batman" accounts. And if you are really worried about it, use different servers to authenticate with.
The reason I dismiss this as a problem is I see the issue as a slider, with one side being the current situation (everything has it's own login) and the opposite side being the "paranoid's worry" situation where everything authenticates off one login. His concern is that OpenID allows you to move the slider (on your own) to the opposite side.
What this doesn't take into account however is that even if everyone switched to doing just OpenID tomorrow, the slider would still be there. Nothing is stopping you from setting up a seperate ID for each account. The only thing OpenID is doing from that perspective is actually unpinning the slider from the current extreme and giving you the choice to move it to where YOU are comfortable with it being at.
You do tell them you are "JimBob". More than one person may rely on "random URL" for their ID, similar to "JimBob" of Yahoo.com
You are not asserting that you have control over anything, if you do it properly then you should have control over "random URL" to the point where you can change who is providing the authentication, but it is not necessary for the schematic. Otherwise Yahoo et. al. would not be providers.
I suggest glancing over the specs for authentication:Version 2 or Version 1 for clarity.
And in addition, don't do business with companies that have access to your 'valuable' information that don't get the difference between authentication and authorization.
OpenID is great for saying "I'm JimBob of JimBoblandia" and in reality, that's all most logins are used for.
But for places that are actually using it for access control, then you should be including a seperate layer to authorize the user in addition to authenticating them. If your bank lets you just walk into the nearest branch and close your accounts by showing just a single form of ID, you should switch banks immediately. The same goes for the online world.
Slashdot Mirror
And being a reasonable human being, you only saw those two options. However, these dips are taking the third unmentioned option.
They are refunding the WEBSITES directly and making it their problem to get the money back to the customer who bought the ticket. The stated goal of "We want to cause as much chaos for the [websites] as possible,"
Unless this is the only airline servicing an area, I say it's time for them to suddenly find out how quickly their bottom line would drop if they just suddenly disappeared from said sites.
When an F-16 pilot's missions regularly last 10 hours straight, maintain full situational awareness of the field rather than the "Hey, you've got some friendlys to the west, try not to kill them" approach most fighter pilots exhibit, and forces him to watch the people he's killing blow apart rather than take a quick "Bombs away, and so am I" approach, we'll call it as demanding as a UAV mission. K?
Or rather, why don't you drop the machisimo and realize that stress comes in many forms and just because the different ways an F-16 pilot is stress don't match the ways a UAV pilot is doesn't one or the other can't equal or surpass the other.
Or are you one of those dicks who thinks that physical stress is the only kind out there and people affected by mental stress should just 'rub some dirt on it and man up'?
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he [Yossarian] observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
Well, one hopes not at least, but having grown up in the military, I could easily see one being in place.
Status is not love; it is the fawning sycophant's emulation of love.
You should probably see this...
Around two hundred years have passed between then and now, and all we really remember are the honeyed words. Men were no more articulate then than now, it is simply as time has passed we've no longer are reminded of the times where they bobbled a sentence or two. Instead we've cherry picked the best of their words, the statements that resound in our hearts, and pretend that they must have spoken thusly the entire time.
And if you read some of the 'publications' put out by their respective political groups back then, the only surprise you would likely have when comparing them to today's are how much more nasty people got.
Adams was "old, querulous, Bald, blind, crippled, Toothless Adams", the Republicans he opposed were "the refuse, the sweepings of the most depraved part of mankind from the most corrupt nations on earth"
Fox News would be right at home.
And one only has to lightly peruse the history of the Alien and Sedition acts signed into law by Adams to see a parallel in the government's use of the Patriot act and it's current interpretation of law.
I'm not saying they weren't great men back then. But we've exaggerated their heights through the lens of time. These were not demi-gods. They did not shoot bolts of lighting out of their ass. They were men, wonderfully fallible men who stepped up and guided our nation the best they could.
My friend. I do believe you have a point. However, you also need to remember that we are a team. It's not about you or I, but that we have a vision. We can see a better tomorrow. A better tomorrow though Paris Hilton, the greater arbitrator.
What are you going to do? When the Obamania runs wild on YOU!
I take it you aren't familiar with the history of our Presidential elections. If you were, you'd realize that while it's sad we are still stuck in the same muck raking environment that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson slandered each other under, it's obviously nothing new.
Given it seems everytime he sends out his talking heads to drum up support for him, they espouse opinions contrary to his platform (ok, not everytime I'm sure, but it hits the press I read often enough). I'd say he needs talking points.
Me, I'm waiting to see what Paris has to say.
That'll be a problem for some of the Asian markets. After all, in Korea, only old people program in COBOL... wait...
War, war never changes....
Whoops.. wrong game.
She just spouts off a bunch of nonsense about a dormouse and "Feed your head". Damn hippies. You wouldn't need quantum theory to understand a true red blooded American!
Even if the asteroid is solid, and there is some 'miracle' way of anchoring the rocket to the asteroid: Landing and pushing requires the assumption that the center of gravity and the shape of the asteroid is such that you can position the rocket push in a productive manner and not just cause the rock to pinwheel or split in two.
Because it'd be highly unlikely that the asteroid is a perfect sphere. And since it's likely to be some weirdly shaped object with a wildly offset center of gravity, thowing things at it isn't a particularly effective means of control. Especially if you only have a limited number of things to throw at it.
At best, you hit it spot on and it moves the direction you want.
More than likely, you hit it off center and instead of budging it you've just caused it to pinwheel. Which has the added effect of causing it to act like a gyroscope and resist further alterations to it's vector. The more things you throw at it, the more likely the second option occurs rather than the first.
A gravity tractor on the other hand, works regardless of the shape of the asteroid.
What if they forgot to mention that Ron Jeremy was one of the stars? I think you could have sued for that....
Have you tried it?
I'm aware of what delegation is, I should be given I essentially described it in the post you replied to. I haven't been able to get it to work for me using the 'big names'.
If you can. Great. Mind posting the code? I'm fully willing to accept I may just be doing a bonehead impression when trying it.
I wouldn't mind if they just went the whole nine yards and used someone elses body.
In Korea only old people enforce patents. In Soviet Russia, patents enforce you!
With better resolutions, less BS moderation, and a 'better' community.
So far I really haven't seen anything more than the potential of better resolutions. They are just as free as Flikr or Youtube in "Eww, I don't like that, delete" button useage, and frankly I haven't really seen anything being hosted by them that wasn't already everywhere else. Other than a few 'name' players like Improve Everywhere using it to host their videos, there hasn't been much of a drive for me to visit it.
I wish them luck, but I have a feeling they are going to suddenly discover starting out tough on content really isn't going to help them gain market share.
If you (in the general sense) wanted to set up your authentication server to use PKI to authenticate you, there isn't anything stopping you. In fact, the details of how the authentication server 'authenticates' you are specificly left out of the specs. Meaning you can go from the extreme of not even bothering and setting up a server that just replies "yeah, it's him" all the time, to one that requires your mom to call you, asks twenty questions, and takes a blood sample.
If on the other hand, you are asking if PKI could replace OpenID, I suggest you browse their site. There is more behind OpenID than just that initial handshake, you really are comparing apples and oranges.
Especially with the "Seems like this is just..." toss off, your question is rather like asking what the difference is between a bus and a taxi. Yes they both move you places, but they both rely on slightly different ideas.
The existence and utility of one does not nullify either of these properties for the other.
PKI is a wonderful means of doing some things, but it doesn't address some of thing things OpenID does. Conversely, there are definitely places where using PKI would make far more sense than attempting to use OpenID.
In fact, given you can dovetail them nicely by using a PKI setup in your authentication server for OpenID, makes your question rather pointless.
Yes, a 'nefarious' authentication server could in fact track the services that have requested it authenticate you. Which is why if you are concerned about your privacy you compartimentalize things by having one ID for 'public' facing accounts and one for "I'm Batman" accounts. And if you are really worried about it, use different servers to authenticate with.
The reason I dismiss this as a problem is I see the issue as a slider, with one side being the current situation (everything has it's own login) and the opposite side being the "paranoid's worry" situation where everything authenticates off one login. His concern is that OpenID allows you to move the slider (on your own) to the opposite side.
What this doesn't take into account however is that even if everyone switched to doing just OpenID tomorrow, the slider would still be there. Nothing is stopping you from setting up a seperate ID for each account. The only thing OpenID is doing from that perspective is actually unpinning the slider from the current extreme and giving you the choice to move it to where YOU are comfortable with it being at.
Actually no.
You do tell them you are "JimBob". More than one person may rely on "random URL" for their ID, similar to "JimBob" of Yahoo.com
You are not asserting that you have control over anything, if you do it properly then you should have control over "random URL" to the point where you can change who is providing the authentication, but it is not necessary for the schematic. Otherwise Yahoo et. al. would not be providers.
I suggest glancing over the specs for authentication:Version 2 or Version 1 for clarity.
And in addition, don't do business with companies that have access to your 'valuable' information that don't get the difference between authentication and authorization.
OpenID is great for saying "I'm JimBob of JimBoblandia" and in reality, that's all most logins are used for.
But for places that are actually using it for access control, then you should be including a seperate layer to authorize the user in addition to authenticating them. If your bank lets you just walk into the nearest branch and close your accounts by showing just a single form of ID, you should switch banks immediately. The same goes for the online world.