It is called Internet banking: person A calls person B and writes down his IBAN bank account number, then get on the Internet and goes into his own banks Internet bank site (using a secure two factor authentification), and sends the money directly to persons B bank account where it appears in 5 minutes to 24 hours. All much faster, cheaper and more secure than snail mailing checks.
The whole 'check' system is a rather absurd anachronism that causes nothing but problems to everyone. In civilized countries a bank will ONLY give your money out if it gets a direct authorization to do so from you. Either you have to go to the bank (with a state issued photo ID) or you have to authenticate electronically via a secure channel using two factor authentication. (Bank card chip + PIN, Internet bank username/password + One time password from a pad, One time password generator + PIN)
Any other way of getting to your money (Direct Debit, magnetic stripe debit cards) requires the receiver to be a large business that has gone trough a large number of verifications and requires you signing a direct debit contract in person, in the bank with a photo ID in hand.
In such system you can give away your bank account number on every corner and there is simply no way that anyone can abuse that.
Talk about outdated thinking, LMT in Latvia is offering ASUS EEEPC 1000 with a built-in 3G reciever for $2 + 2 year data contract. That offer is there for at least half a year, could be close to a full year now.
In case you did not know, the vote counting is never done 'in your head'. Every step is put on paper and it is done in a parallel manner: one person takes a ballot and looks at the presidential vote, ticks on a tally sheet a mark in the appropriate column and gives the ballot to the next counter that is counting a different thing. 2 people in the same chain are counting the same thing for cross-checks. When a batch is completed (say 1000 ballots), they count the ticks on the tally sheet, and write a total number for the batch down at the bottom and cross-check with the other person doing the same counting.
Very fast, very simple, impossible to loose count and very scalable - more questions simply means that you need more counters.
This has been solved long time ago in Debian - every vote is public, BUT all personal information is replaced by a hash. At the time of voting you get issued an unique identifying string that only you know. In the public tally your vote will be next to that string, so you can verify your vote, but noone else can link that vote back to you. You can even give someone a different hash providing total deniability.
Soooo, all your votes are entrusted to the postman working on minimum pay? There is no way to really verify that the ballot that was delivered to the vote counting place really is filled in by you - there is ample opportunity for very easy man-in-the-middle attacks. That is the most insecure system that I have EVER seen.
It is much easer to design the elevator cars as reentry vehicles and in case of an emergency just have them disconnect from the ribbon and free-fall with a parachute-based landing. If it is too high for that (out of the atmosphere), then it should be easy to send a rescue shuttle from the top.
You obviously have no idea of the margins on the weight problems in this project. How much would a cable (capable of transmitting enough voltage) weight? The whole 35 000 kilometers of it? At such length even steel can not support its own weight, the weight of any type of additional conducting material on the ribbon will likely double or even tripple its weight and that in turn doubles or tripples the ammount of force the ribbon must be able to carry (per unit of weight). Currently we are struggling to get from current 10 GPa to the required 100 GPa and you propose to go up to 300 GPa just to get a cable up?
Laser power transmission to send energy from a ground-based nuclear power plant to the climber is a well tested solution that will not increase the weight of the system. Read up on the state of art before throwing absurd suggestions, please.
In the rapidly changing market the incentive to do the R&D is the 3-6 month of monopoly in the market *until* your competitors reverse-engineer your innovation and bring it to market. If that is not enough for you, then innovate in smaller steps.
The law is not written for the protection of the innovator, but to the benefit of the whole society. It is much better for the society to have a number of competitors innovating on a product in small increments driven by the market, than have one company do a large innovation and then freeze the market for 20 years.
IsoHunt has no way of knowing if: 1) the torrent contains what it says on the box 2) if the files in question are protected by copyright 3) if the holders of the copyright object to such distribution.
Only if all 3 of the above is true, the distribution of the files in the torrent might be considered illegal (and only by a court).
IsoHunt has no legal basis to determine any of the above. The copyright holders must monitor the files and notify IsoHunt of any discovered torrents with potentially infringing material.
They need to provide: 1) proof of content (actual content of the files in the torrent) 2) proof of copyright (papers that show that they are the copyright holders or their representatives in this case) 3) takedown notice (in writing)
After that is delivered (on paper, with proper signatures, via snail main), IsoHunt can take down the torrent as soon as possible. Due to limited staff time that might take up to two weeks.:)
Frankly, I would not want to fly in an air plane that is described as "ground-breaking"... I can see how a ground breaking digger would be a good thing, part of its functionality really, but a ground breaking air plane?
Girls have a more socially-oriented brain structure that tends to react with less confidence to unfounded criticism. In my opinion, all people get treated equally bad in tech circles, but typically girls get less confident under such pressure and fail to advance.
When i read the headline, I assumed that the found that boys can learn math as good as girls do. In my part of the world (Eastern EU) it is assumed that girls have much better math skills on average than boys.
Using TortoiseSVN might be too complex for the intended use. Just using WebDAV SVN repo and an editor with support for editing a WebDAV file directly would do. You will not have commit messages, but in this case, I do not think anyone cares as long as history is kept and it is known who did what change.
Storing version information in a complimentary file is the very basic description of what version control systems do.
Give your users an editor with WebDav support and make them edit the files directly in the SVN repository using a HTTP WebDav repository feature of SVN.
I cann't claim to 100% understand the situation but after glancing trough the logs of the discussions and of the patches the conclusion I came to was this - OpenSSL used supposed randomness of the uninitialized memory as an added source of entropy (interesting hack, but not an example of good coding as such). Valgring caught that problem and the Debian maintainer during a cleanup fixed it. Making such a fix can be considered a preventive step against possible attack vectors by poisoning the uninitialized memory. He took it up to upstream, they did not raise red flags, but did not quite merge the âclean upâ(TM) patch either. It fell through the cracks.
The problem is that in the same file, in another function all other sources of entropy were being merged into the pool of randomness using exactly the same code line as the one code line flagged by Valgrind. The maintainer assumed that the second code line has a similar function to the first and commented that one as well. AFAIK that also did not show up in the emails to the upstream list.
So we have:
* Upstream using clever hacks that rely on uninitialized memory having some randomness to it
* Upstream using same code and same variable names to describe different things
* Upstream having no comments in the code explaining the two things above
* Maintainer slightly over-generalizing a change
* A bug slipping trough the cracks in the review processes
* Another Debian Developer discovering the bug and recognizing its significance despite all of the above
* Debian project coming out and admitting all of the above and scrambling to get fixes out to its users ASAP
I am impressed by the swift action of the people involved in fixing this. And while I think everyone can find some lesson be learned here, I think this is another good example of free software in action. And I hope that in the aftermath of this we will find ways to prevent this from happening in the future without stifling our progress.
If you happen to download a very popular torrent (such the latest Naruto or BSG episode) with 30000 seeds all over the world, then this would be a godsend.
If the torrent client chooses a peer at random and gets a peer across the world from you, then there will be bad traffic between you two. If all peers are such unlucky choices (which is a significant probability for high popularity torrents) then you will have low total download speed, underutilisation of you bandwidth and (most importantly) overutilisation of intercontinental cables.
Mao is a great game for any bunch of intellectual people. However, be sure to exaust all other fun activities and be sure to make all participants of the party play the game. Otherwise people tend to become bored within a few short hours and distract others with drinks and striptease.
A better example here is if the 'thief' took pictures of every page of the book without taking the book itself. The 'thief' clearly commits copyright infringement, but the question is whether you commit copyright infringement by leaving the book outside where the 'thief' could easily find and access it.
Slashdot Mirror
It is called Internet banking: person A calls person B and writes down his IBAN bank account number, then get on the Internet and goes into his own banks Internet bank site (using a secure two factor authentification), and sends the money directly to persons B bank account where it appears in 5 minutes to 24 hours. All much faster, cheaper and more secure than snail mailing checks.
The whole 'check' system is a rather absurd anachronism that causes nothing but problems to everyone. In civilized countries a bank will ONLY give your money out if it gets a direct authorization to do so from you. Either you have to go to the bank (with a state issued photo ID) or you have to authenticate electronically via a secure channel using two factor authentication. (Bank card chip + PIN, Internet bank username/password + One time password from a pad, One time password generator + PIN)
Any other way of getting to your money (Direct Debit, magnetic stripe debit cards) requires the receiver to be a large business that has gone trough a large number of verifications and requires you signing a direct debit contract in person, in the bank with a photo ID in hand.
In such system you can give away your bank account number on every corner and there is simply no way that anyone can abuse that.
Talk about outdated thinking, LMT in Latvia is offering ASUS EEEPC 1000 with a built-in 3G reciever for $2 + 2 year data contract. That offer is there for at least half a year, could be close to a full year now.
I wish there was an option to have that with the monthly updates no less.
In case you did not know, the vote counting is never done 'in your head'. Every step is put on paper and it is done in a parallel manner: one person takes a ballot and looks at the presidential vote, ticks on a tally sheet a mark in the appropriate column and gives the ballot to the next counter that is counting a different thing. 2 people in the same chain are counting the same thing for cross-checks. When a batch is completed (say 1000 ballots), they count the ticks on the tally sheet, and write a total number for the batch down at the bottom and cross-check with the other person doing the same counting.
Very fast, very simple, impossible to loose count and very scalable - more questions simply means that you need more counters.
This has been solved long time ago in Debian - every vote is public, BUT all personal information is replaced by a hash. At the time of voting you get issued an unique identifying string that only you know. In the public tally your vote will be next to that string, so you can verify your vote, but noone else can link that vote back to you. You can even give someone a different hash providing total deniability.
Soooo, all your votes are entrusted to the postman working on minimum pay? There is no way to really verify that the ballot that was delivered to the vote counting place really is filled in by you - there is ample opportunity for very easy man-in-the-middle attacks. That is the most insecure system that I have EVER seen.
Nah, to be applicable to humans it needs ... MORE COWBELL!
It is much easer to design the elevator cars as reentry vehicles and in case of an emergency just have them disconnect from the ribbon and free-fall with a parachute-based landing. If it is too high for that (out of the atmosphere), then it should be easy to send a rescue shuttle from the top.
You obviously have no idea of the margins on the weight problems in this project. How much would a cable (capable of transmitting enough voltage) weight? The whole 35 000 kilometers of it? At such length even steel can not support its own weight, the weight of any type of additional conducting material on the ribbon will likely double or even tripple its weight and that in turn doubles or tripples the ammount of force the ribbon must be able to carry (per unit of weight). Currently we are struggling to get from current 10 GPa to the required 100 GPa and you propose to go up to 300 GPa just to get a cable up?
Laser power transmission to send energy from a ground-based nuclear power plant to the climber is a well tested solution that will not increase the weight of the system. Read up on the state of art before throwing absurd suggestions, please.
In the rapidly changing market the incentive to do the R&D is the 3-6 month of monopoly in the market *until* your competitors reverse-engineer your innovation and bring it to market. If that is not enough for you, then innovate in smaller steps.
The law is not written for the protection of the innovator, but to the benefit of the whole society. It is much better for the society to have a number of competitors innovating on a product in small increments driven by the market, than have one company do a large innovation and then freeze the market for 20 years.
IsoHunt has no way of knowing if:
1) the torrent contains what it says on the box
2) if the files in question are protected by copyright
3) if the holders of the copyright object to such distribution.
Only if all 3 of the above is true, the distribution of the files in the torrent might be considered illegal (and only by a court).
IsoHunt has no legal basis to determine any of the above. The copyright holders must monitor the files and notify IsoHunt of any discovered torrents with potentially infringing material.
They need to provide:
1) proof of content (actual content of the files in the torrent)
2) proof of copyright (papers that show that they are the copyright holders or their representatives in this case)
3) takedown notice (in writing)
After that is delivered (on paper, with proper signatures, via snail main), IsoHunt can take down the torrent as soon as possible. Due to limited staff time that might take up to two weeks. :)
Frankly, I would not want to fly in an air plane that is described as "ground-breaking" ... I can see how a ground breaking digger would be a good thing, part of its functionality really, but a ground breaking air plane?
Girls have a more socially-oriented brain structure that tends to react with less confidence to unfounded criticism. In my opinion, all people get treated equally bad in tech circles, but typically girls get less confident under such pressure and fail to advance.
When i read the headline, I assumed that the found that boys can learn math as good as girls do. In my part of the world (Eastern EU) it is assumed that girls have much better math skills on average than boys.
Using TortoiseSVN might be too complex for the intended use. Just using WebDAV SVN repo and an editor with support for editing a WebDAV file directly would do. You will not have commit messages, but in this case, I do not think anyone cares as long as history is kept and it is known who did what change.
Storing version information in a complimentary file is the very basic description of what version control systems do.
Give your users an editor with WebDav support and make them edit the files directly in the SVN repository using a HTTP WebDav repository feature of SVN.
http://www.aigarius.com/ff3_countdown.html - download timer countdown.
Touchdown!
Thanks, works great in MPlayer!
I cann't claim to 100% understand the situation but after glancing trough the logs of the discussions and of the patches the conclusion I came to was this - OpenSSL used supposed randomness of the uninitialized memory as an added source of entropy (interesting hack, but not an example of good coding as such). Valgring caught that problem and the Debian maintainer during a cleanup fixed it. Making such a fix can be considered a preventive step against possible attack vectors by poisoning the uninitialized memory. He took it up to upstream, they did not raise red flags, but did not quite merge the âclean upâ(TM) patch either. It fell through the cracks.
The problem is that in the same file, in another function all other sources of entropy were being merged into the pool of randomness using exactly the same code line as the one code line flagged by Valgrind. The maintainer assumed that the second code line has a similar function to the first and commented that one as well. AFAIK that also did not show up in the emails to the upstream list.
So we have:
* Upstream using clever hacks that rely on uninitialized memory having some randomness to it
* Upstream using same code and same variable names to describe different things
* Upstream having no comments in the code explaining the two things above
* Maintainer slightly over-generalizing a change
* A bug slipping trough the cracks in the review processes
* Another Debian Developer discovering the bug and recognizing its significance despite all of the above
* Debian project coming out and admitting all of the above and scrambling to get fixes out to its users ASAP
I am impressed by the swift action of the people involved in fixing this. And while I think everyone can find some lesson be learned here, I think this is another good example of free software in action. And I hope that in the aftermath of this we will find ways to prevent this from happening in the future without stifling our progress.
http://www.aigarius.com/blog/2008/05/14/too-similar-to-be-different/
If you happen to download a very popular torrent (such the latest Naruto or BSG episode) with 30000 seeds all over the world, then this would be a godsend.
As I described here: http://www.aigarius.com/blog/2006/08/12/bit-horizon/
If the torrent client chooses a peer at random and gets a peer across the world from you, then there will be bad traffic between you two. If all peers are such unlucky choices (which is a significant probability for high popularity torrents) then you will have low total download speed, underutilisation of you bandwidth and (most importantly) overutilisation of intercontinental cables.
Mao is a great game for any bunch of intellectual people. However, be sure to exaust all other fun activities and be sure to make all participants of the party play the game. Otherwise people tend to become bored within a few short hours and distract others with drinks and striptease.
The above is from the animation page in Fiefox 3.0 under Ubuntu 8.04. And no animation
A better example here is if the 'thief' took pictures of every page of the book without taking the book itself. The 'thief' clearly commits copyright infringement, but the question is whether you commit copyright infringement by leaving the book outside where the 'thief' could easily find and access it.