Does anyone else find it remarkable that he just happened to find a computer belonging to al-Zawahiri in a room that had Mohammed Atef's name over the door. And how did the looter know that
Each day, he said, Atef would walk into the office carrying the laptop in its black case.?
Cool story, if true; but I suspect that A. Monthly got 0wned by this journalist.
Suppose I have a mass of 75kg and want to rise to a height of 3 meters above ground in 30 seconds. The power required is (75kg)*(9.81 m/s^2)*(3m)/30s, which is about 75 Watts, which is possibly doable. Granted, 3m in 30 seconds is excruciatingly slow...
Neither have I, but it seems like it would be easy to scatter bits of a message throughout a data segment. After all, it would be difficult (or impossible?) to check that every bit of the data segment gets referenced in a non-trivial way by the code. Figuring out how to tip off the receiver as to the location(s) of the message is more tricky, but not impossible.
I think you lumped my comments in with someone else's; there's no hysteria in what I said, and no vague hypothesis, either -- in fact, I provide no hypothesis at all. I'm just pointing out the best question to ask to get the richest experimental results, which is what a responsible scientist does. Go look at the links I provided, peruse them for data on percentages of women in the respective fields, and then explain how those results could be solely biological. Or else, cease from trolling.
As for controlling environmental factors, I think it is insane and unhealthy that even though you can't identify anything wrong with the environment society provides for young women (as pertains to CS at least), you still want to screw with it so that you can twiddle some statistics that don't seem to matter to anyone, least of all women.
I don't think you understood... I would never advocate changing things at random. However, since we can possibly change environmental factors and cannot possibly change biological factors, I'm suggesting that we stop wasting time shouting about nature vs. nurture (answer: it's both) and get down to the work of identifying the correct environmental factors. Nothing insane about that.
The interesting cases are not ones like computer science, which have always been dominated (numerically) by men. The interesting cases are ones like medicine, where in certain specialties -- gynecology and pediatrics -- the tide has shifted from majority male to majority female or a 50/50 split. What causes this change? Not evolution! In other words, nothing inherently biological.
Idiot posters aside, I think most people can agree that there are a combination of biological and environmental factors that contribute to the low percentage of female CSers. Fine. So what are the environmental factors, and how can we control them? That's the real (and interesting) question.
I don't think you read the Stanford admissions page correctly. The point of having no minimum GMAT or GPA is not to open the doors wide to any old slob who wants an MBA (after all, they're only accepting 365 students per class). Instead, they are deliberately saying "we aren't telling you what are admissions criteria are, so don't bother suing us."
A CS grad has a framework for thought. As a result, he can quickly learn the MCSE material and move on with life. Someone with an MCSE, on the other hand, will never learn algorithms unless (s)he's highly motivated and has a few years to spend on learning how to plan and code programs.
Stamp redemption and clearing doesn't need to even run on the server. I don't know where you got the idea that it would... I've pointed out that putting part of this on the server would be an optimization.
I understand how this works on the receiver end, but I don't understand how it works on the sender end. How do you plan to (securely) associate a given stamp with a given e-mail message? It seems to me that the redemption center would need to have some way to guarantee that the e-mail it's stamping is in fact the e-mail that's being sent. Hence, the redemption center (assuming a single one, but see below) turns into a huge, centralized mail server.
By mentioning DNS, are you implying that the redemption process would be distributed? If so, that is terribly problematic in terms of financial trust; redemption centers will have to hold actual money (or worse, credit card #s) in order to make the stamps meaningful. If any old server can be a redemption repository (just as any old DNS server can be the authority for a zone), then theft will occur.
I'm not pretending to be a protocol expert, so don't be annoyed at my naivite; I'm just trrying to forsee problems.
OK, so... if you had to choose (for budgetary reasons) between running W2K server with all W2K clients OR running W2K3 server with all W2K clients, which would you choose?
The problems with existing SMTP and this plan are that
a) you don't want to have to send *all* of your e-mail (interoffice memos!) through a central server. The bandwidth required would be -- awesome, and service would begin to resemble the USPS. SMTP derives a lot of popularity from its distributed nature. b) I believe it would be fairly easy for a black-hat mail sender to make up some SMTP packet headers that appear to be stamped but have no redeeming value.
Not that I'm knocking the entire plan; I just don't think SMTP in its current form can actually handle it, so I've abandoned it for the time being Now that I'm thinking about it again, though, what about a combination of white-listing *and* digital stamping. In this plan, browsers are configured to receive e-mails from known "white-listers" as usual; all others are blocked. BUT, a central server (your "franking server") could accept e-mail from those not on your white list, verify a stamp for the e-mail, and then forward it. The central server would then be on everyone's white list. If the mail is bogus, you hit the "charge" button, which sends a quick IP packet back to the server demanding payment.
I suppose you could just download the spam, cash the stamp, and delete it unread. That's a risk the spammer would have to accept when he sends out a million penny-stamped messages.
I think I understand. However, I'm stilled fascinated by the alternative: to have the stamp cashed *only* at the discretion of the reader (i.e., not automatically cashed if the e-mail is opened). Here's why:
Several have noted that people in third-world countries would find a penny-per-e-mail to be cost prohibitive, even for normal use. If we make the cashing of the stamp a punitive action, then "white-hat" e-mails can still use e-mail for essentially free (since their stamps rarely get cashed), whereas spammers get punished as they deserve. The stamp still functions, as you would like, to serve notice that I'm ponying up cash for your attention, but that notice is treated as simply a courtesy if your e-mail is legit.
If they don't open the message, or don't open it before the bid expires, or don't cash the stamp, it doesn't cost you anything.
So it would seem that you *do* pay if they read the mail, but don't pay if they don't -- which is the opposite effect from my intention. In other words, to get spammers to pay, I have to read their spam. Yikes! Maybe I misunderstand...
I've worked on this problem in my mind for a while; a fellow/.er named "JuggleGeek" pointed out the real problem:
since mail messages don't go directly from my computer to yours, but instead get bounced from SMTP server to SMTP server, there is no way to verify the identity of the sender and no way to collect the fee.
To do so would require setting up centralized mail servers that would handle all e-mail transactions, which would clog the flow of e-mail tremendously (might not be a bad thing:-).
If it were possible to put a stamp on e-mail, I would suggest that it be a temporary deposit payable to the receiver rather than a mandatory fee payable to a central authority. The receiver would then determine whether the deposit is forfeited or not. In this way, the end-users and NOT a central authority would get control over deciding which e-mails are actually spams.
(Others have incorrectly suggested that this would lead to scams where people would tempt you to send an e-mail and then charge you; if you think about it carefully, you can see that can't happen -- in order to send an e-mail, you have to pay a deposit; no one will be willing to pony up unless they are fairly confident that their e-mail will be received. At, say, a penny per e-mail, it would be very hard to get rich on the few suckers willing to fall for a scam).
But again, this idea can only work for a radically different type of e-mail protocol. SMTP can't handle the verification requirements.
You're right about the demand side of the equation, but not about the supply side. Kitchens have a natural incentive to get rid of the grease (i.e., it's trash to them); oil-producing companies have no such incentive. Therefore, the supply-demand equilibrium is still going to hit at a lower price for grease than it does for crude oil.
Frightening. My overarching point is that there are sound channels that generally *work* in the U.S. to deal with this sort of incompetence. The first is the press; the second is the separation of powers (if the executive branch doesn't want to know, the legislative branch sure will); the third is the Inspector General's office, which is widely known for non-partisan, "wheels that grind slow but exceedingly fine" behavior.
...I got a 100% just by asking the question "Are they actually trying to get any personal info from me?" If yes, then mark as scam. The only excecption is if the e-mail instructs me to manually log in to the correct site (as in the MSN e-mail) to update my info.
If he were 16, I would cut him some slack, but at 30, he should know how the game is played:
1) Go to any reputable news organization (from CNN to Fox, or anything in between), and tell them that you have managed to acquire military briefings through an online file-sharing service. Let them know that you tried to contact the military and nothing happened.
They will be glad for the scoop, happy to look patriotic, and will know how to shame the military into action
2) If that doesn't work or doesn't appeal, contact John Warner's office (senate, head of Armed Services Committee) with your story. Heads will roll.
... so with tears in our eyes, we drove the VW microbus back to the recording studio with the rakes and the shovels and the implements of destruction, and had ourselves a copyright-burning party that couldn't be beat...
Mod up. You raise a really good point. To make the record store satisfy your demand, though, is easy: We simply expect that you could go to a music store and listen to CDs before you buy them -- but, that's exactly what classy music stores do already.
Far different would be an art store that permits what actually happens with music:
Cagle: I like that painting. Lemme take it home, and if I like it enough, I'll pay for it. BTW, I'm not leaving an address or phone number because I want to protect my privacy.
Art Guy: Why, sure!
(3. Profit??!!)
So, my proposed solution is that we pay less for CDs and more for live music. What to do about music that can ONLY be heard in recorded format is another, stickier problem. My only solution to that is to insist that bands that can't sound as good live as they do on CD aren't really musicians;-) (***ducks***)
Well, and in a roundabout way, I agree with you. As you might be able to guess from my original post, I believe that music should generally be free. My point was simply that music providers today expect to be paid, while many music consumers expect not to pay. Why the disconnect? And then the rest of the post follows.
BTW, you made me smile. I haven't had someone flag a split infinitive for years.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of glass car tanks that can shatter and spread their contents everywhere? Me neither.
Suppose I have a mass of 75kg and want to rise to a height of 3 meters above ground in 30 seconds. The power required is (75kg)*(9.81 m/s^2)*(3m)/30s, which is about 75 Watts, which is possibly doable. Granted, 3m in 30 seconds is excruciatingly slow ...
Japan's entry into WWII was motivated in part by a desire for Manchurian oil.
A major theme of the Cold War was control over Mideast Oil.
The oil wars parent mentions are referenced here
That said, there is still a lot to be said in favor of oil, as you point out. I prefer to blame human nature rather than black gold.
Neither have I, but it seems like it would be easy to scatter bits of a message throughout a data segment. After all, it would be difficult (or impossible?) to check that every bit of the data segment gets referenced in a non-trivial way by the code. Figuring out how to tip off the receiver as to the location(s) of the message is more tricky, but not impossible.
I think you lumped my comments in with someone else's; there's no hysteria in what I said, and no vague hypothesis, either -- in fact, I provide no hypothesis at all. I'm just pointing out the best question to ask to get the richest experimental results, which is what a responsible scientist does. Go look at the links I provided, peruse them for data on percentages of women in the respective fields, and then explain how those results could be solely biological. Or else, cease from trolling.
The interesting cases are not ones like computer science, which have always been dominated (numerically) by men. The interesting cases are ones like medicine, where in certain specialties -- gynecology and pediatrics -- the tide has shifted from majority male to majority female or a 50/50 split. What causes this change? Not evolution! In other words, nothing inherently biological.
Idiot posters aside, I think most people can agree that there are a combination of biological and environmental factors that contribute to the low percentage of female CSers. Fine. So what are the environmental factors, and how can we control them? That's the real (and interesting) question.
I don't think you read the Stanford admissions page correctly. The point of having no minimum GMAT or GPA is not to open the doors wide to any old slob who wants an MBA (after all, they're only accepting 365 students per class). Instead, they are deliberately saying "we aren't telling you what are admissions criteria are, so don't bother suing us."
Yes, but...
A CS grad has a framework for thought. As a result, he can quickly learn the MCSE material and move on with life. Someone with an MCSE, on the other hand, will never learn algorithms unless (s)he's highly motivated and has a few years to spend on learning how to plan and code programs.
By mentioning DNS, are you implying that the redemption process would be distributed? If so, that is terribly problematic in terms of financial trust; redemption centers will have to hold actual money (or worse, credit card #s) in order to make the stamps meaningful. If any old server can be a redemption repository (just as any old DNS server can be the authority for a zone), then theft will occur.
I'm not pretending to be a protocol expert, so don't be annoyed at my naivite; I'm just trrying to forsee problems.
OK, so ... if you had to choose (for budgetary reasons) between running W2K server with all W2K clients OR running W2K3 server with all W2K clients, which would you choose?
The problems with existing SMTP and this plan are that
a) you don't want to have to send *all* of your e-mail (interoffice memos!) through a central server. The bandwidth required would be -- awesome, and service would begin to resemble the USPS. SMTP derives a lot of popularity from its distributed nature.
b) I believe it would be fairly easy for a black-hat mail sender to make up some SMTP packet headers that appear to be stamped but have no redeeming value.
Not that I'm knocking the entire plan; I just don't think SMTP in its current form can actually handle it, so I've abandoned it for the time being
Now that I'm thinking about it again, though, what about a combination of white-listing *and* digital stamping. In this plan, browsers are configured to receive e-mails from known "white-listers" as usual; all others are blocked. BUT, a central server (your "franking server") could accept e-mail from those not on your white list, verify a stamp for the e-mail, and then forward it. The central server would then be on everyone's white list. If the mail is bogus, you hit the "charge" button, which sends a quick IP packet back to the server demanding payment.
Spoofing is still a big issue, though.
Several have noted that people in third-world countries would find a penny-per-e-mail to be cost prohibitive, even for normal use. If we make the cashing of the stamp a punitive action, then "white-hat" e-mails can still use e-mail for essentially free (since their stamps rarely get cashed), whereas spammers get punished as they deserve. The stamp still functions, as you would like, to serve notice that I'm ponying up cash for your attention, but that notice is treated as simply a courtesy if your e-mail is legit.
I've worked on this problem in my mind for a while; a fellow /.er named "JuggleGeek" pointed out the real problem:
:-).
since mail messages don't go directly from my computer to yours, but instead get bounced from SMTP server to SMTP server, there is no way to verify the identity of the sender and no way to collect the fee.
To do so would require setting up centralized mail servers that would handle all e-mail transactions, which would clog the flow of e-mail tremendously (might not be a bad thing
If it were possible to put a stamp on e-mail, I would suggest that it be a temporary deposit payable to the receiver rather than a mandatory fee payable to a central authority. The receiver would then determine whether the deposit is forfeited or not. In this way, the end-users and NOT a central authority would get control over deciding which e-mails are actually spams.
(Others have incorrectly suggested that this would lead to scams where people would tempt you to send an e-mail and then charge you; if you think about it carefully, you can see that can't happen -- in order to send an e-mail, you have to pay a deposit; no one will be willing to pony up unless they are fairly confident that their e-mail will be received. At, say, a penny per e-mail, it would be very hard to get rich on the few suckers willing to fall for a scam).
But again, this idea can only work for a radically different type of e-mail protocol. SMTP can't handle the verification requirements.
You're right about the demand side of the equation, but not about the supply side. Kitchens have a natural incentive to get rid of the grease (i.e., it's trash to them); oil-producing companies have no such incentive. Therefore, the supply-demand equilibrium is still going to hit at a lower price for grease than it does for crude oil.
Frightening. My overarching point is that there are sound channels that generally *work* in the U.S. to deal with this sort of incompetence. The first is the press; the second is the separation of powers (if the executive branch doesn't want to know, the legislative branch sure will); the third is the Inspector General's office, which is widely known for non-partisan, "wheels that grind slow but exceedingly fine" behavior.
It's no crime to locate classified documents in an insecure location and then point them out to an appropriate authority.
...I got a 100% just by asking the question "Are they actually trying to get any personal info from me?" If yes, then mark as scam. The only excecption is if the e-mail instructs me to manually log in to the correct site (as in the MSN e-mail) to update my info.
If he were 16, I would cut him some slack, but at 30, he should know how the game is played:
1) Go to any reputable news organization (from CNN to Fox, or anything in between), and tell them that you have managed to acquire military briefings through an online file-sharing service. Let them know that you tried to contact the military and nothing happened.
They will be glad for the scoop, happy to look patriotic, and will know how to shame the military into action
2) If that doesn't work or doesn't appeal, contact John Warner's office (senate, head of Armed Services Committee) with your story. Heads will roll.
I had to laugh at this thread. Too bad I can't mod them all up and down simultaneously as "Funny Flamebait"
... so with tears in our eyes, we drove the VW microbus back to the recording studio with the rakes and the shovels and the implements of destruction, and had ourselves a copyright-burning party that couldn't be beat...
Mod up. You raise a really good point. To make the record store satisfy your demand, though, is easy: We simply expect that you could go to a music store and listen to CDs before you buy them -- but, that's exactly what classy music stores do already.
;-) (***ducks***)
Far different would be an art store that permits what actually happens with music:
Cagle: I like that painting. Lemme take it home, and if I like it enough, I'll pay for it. BTW, I'm not leaving an address or phone number because I want to protect my privacy.
Art Guy: Why, sure!
(3. Profit??!!)
So, my proposed solution is that we pay less for CDs and more for live music. What to do about music that can ONLY be heard in recorded format is another, stickier problem. My only solution to that is to insist that bands that can't sound as good live as they do on CD aren't really musicians
Well, and in a roundabout way, I agree with you. As you might be able to guess from my original post, I believe that music should generally be free. My point was simply that music providers today expect to be paid, while many music consumers expect not to pay. Why the disconnect? And then the rest of the post follows.
:-)
BTW, you made me smile. I haven't had someone flag a split infinitive for years.