Well if you are planning to write a Firefox extension, I won't feel too guilty about suggesting things that "someone" should implement. The thought that occured was that people will mostly get spoofed by immitations of sites they have previously visited - their bank, paypal etc.
You could check the url against urls in the browser's history, and look for domains that almost match - this being defined as only differing by characters that appear similar. If it is an almost match, flag it to the user, who could whitelist it (I do think having an option to flag all non-ascii urls is a good idea though).
So páypal.xxx would flag up a warning if the user had previously visited paypal.com (although I suppose that a blacklist would be better for commonly spoofed sites, ideally).
As for matching the characters, I found this, which can be downloaded from here - there's a file called chars.xml in the zip which has all the letters in the alphabet in nice xml.
If/When/(have they already?) non-standard characters start to be used for many comercial sites, this system would cope without many false positives, since it would only signal the user if they had visited an almost matching version first.
This is by no means foolproof I guess - a dodgy paypal sign up link could fool a non-paypal user if they wanted to buy something for example. In theory though this could be combined with a blacklist of high-risk domains, which would always be flagged up. (List should maintained by "someone".)
Just an idea, and maybe a bad one, but I thought I'd suggest it since I'm far too lazy to try to do it myself..
But with property there is a central registry, so finding out who owns a particular building is trivial.
If there was no registry then it would be similar:
1. You buy a buliding, then abandon it for decades.
2. I find building, conduct due diligence but cannot find previous owner, and set up my own business there.
3. You sue me for the money I've made (Profit!)
Looking at this from a British perspective, I think you might be approaching the problem from the wrong direction.
Compared to the US, Britain is pretty clean when it comes to corporate donations to political parties. I do not think the reason for this is better laws controling donating, but rather much stricter controls on what politicians can spend. In particular, UK political parties have a limited number of TV spots they can use for "party political broadcasts".
While it may not be a perfect system, it does prevent UK politicians from being in the pocket of corporations in the way that seems common in the US.
Would this not be signed by his attorney, who might be able to argue that he took his client's word on it (I don't see anything in the declaration about a minimum amount of research needed).
Now if someone were to send a polite and informative letter to his attorney (with a proof of delivery), this attorney could be in a world of hurt if he proceeded.
Jim Hacker: You know what they say about the average Common Market official: he has the organizing ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans, and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch and the intelligence of the Irish.
I trust you are not connecting these two events? Floating ice will not increase mean sea levels by one micrometre.
Complete nit pick, but surely floating ice contains air pockets, which increase the bouyancy of the iceberg/arctic ice sheet, and hence reduces the displacement. So if it melts you would expect a slight increase in sea levels. Maybe even by as much as a micrometre:)
They think we don't see it, but this is just another piece in the puzzle. Yes it's all begining to make sense.
The cybernetic rats are taking over. And they're pissed. Angered by the years of experiments, they have already taken over the scientists, and they are using them to take over all our technology. It's only a matter of time now...
Nope, it's the content author who gets to decide what you do with his work. That's the law, if you don't like it, tough shit.
No it's not the law. Fair use gives you the right to use a portion of someone's work, without their permision, and even against their express wishes. When machines interprate copyright law this is a right that you lose.
heh, fair enough. The first link you posted was interesting, thank-you.
The point I was actually trying to make (poorly quite possibly) was more about public opinion, rather than scientific - ie Americans seem to be the only nationality I've met where a large percentage of the public don't take climate change seriously.
My own view would be that enviromental alarmists are unhelpful - blaming the latest flood or storm on global warming isn't going to convice anyone who's sceptical - but the model behind global warming is sound enough. And the evidence, at the very least, does not contradict this model.
Anyway, CO2 related global warming is caused exclusively by fossile fuels, and these will run out sooner or later. Trying to move away from, and increase the efficency of, these sources of energy seems like a smart move to me.
While both points you make are true, this still doesn't make global warming either non-existent or a good thing.
Climate change causes disruption. Sure some areas that are now barren may become fertile, but the effect on some now hospitable (and therefore highly populated) regions will be devastating. Sure the climate will still change due to perfectly natural reasons, but trying to keep this change as small as possible is simple common sense.
OK, now for the flamebait. Why is it only the US where there is a large number of people who reject the whole global warming theory? I've heard arguments (from Americans) that it's all a plot to damage the US economy. Do people really believe that?
I agree, I know it must have sentimental attachment for a lot of people, but it's a real factor in slowing adoption.
FOSS applications are great if you're trying to supply low-cost computers, but not if you have to explain the name to each and every customer - it's just not worth the hassle.
The problem with "free" is that there is no free lunch. The problem with Thermonuclear fusion is that it is producing HEAT. Even used to produce electricity, the end result (at my computer or light bulb or whatever) is HEAT.
See Peter F Hamilton's fantastic Night's Dawn Trilogy for a great description of Earth suffering the effects of 40 billion consumers of cheap fusion power.
Slashdot Mirror
I ask you, what better way is there to spend a Saturday night?
reference
I'm pretty sure they ignore you first..
That was a long time ago..
Well if you are planning to write a Firefox extension, I won't feel too guilty about suggesting things that "someone" should implement. The thought that occured was that people will mostly get spoofed by immitations of sites they have previously visited - their bank, paypal etc.
You could check the url against urls in the browser's history, and look for domains that almost match - this being defined as only differing by characters that appear similar. If it is an almost match, flag it to the user, who could whitelist it (I do think having an option to flag all non-ascii urls is a good idea though).
So páypal.xxx would flag up a warning if the user had previously visited paypal.com (although I suppose that a blacklist would be better for commonly spoofed sites, ideally).
As for matching the characters, I found this, which can be downloaded from here - there's a file called chars.xml in the zip which has all the letters in the alphabet in nice xml.
If/When/(have they already?) non-standard characters start to be used for many comercial sites, this system would cope without many false positives, since it would only signal the user if they had visited an almost matching version first.
This is by no means foolproof I guess - a dodgy paypal sign up link could fool a non-paypal user if they wanted to buy something for example. In theory though this could be combined with a blacklist of high-risk domains, which would always be flagged up. (List should maintained by "someone".)
Just an idea, and maybe a bad one, but I thought I'd suggest it since I'm far too lazy to try to do it myself..
The main thread about this on WebMasterWorld is over 500 posts now.. lots of good info there.
But with property there is a central registry, so finding out who owns a particular building is trivial.
If there was no registry then it would be similar:
1. You buy a buliding, then abandon it for decades.
2. I find building, conduct due diligence but cannot find previous owner, and set up my own business there.
3. You sue me for the money I've made (Profit!)
Since Eldred, it is defined solely at the discretion of congress.
Try looking up delusional in the dictionary. It can be spelled P-a-t-r-i-o-t A-c-t or D-M-C-A.
You sir are a God, Thank-you!
It's actually KBE.. we're British remember, we have a more sensible approach to acronyms.
Looking at this from a British perspective, I think you might be approaching the problem from the wrong direction.
Compared to the US, Britain is pretty clean when it comes to corporate donations to political parties. I do not think the reason for this is better laws controling donating, but rather much stricter controls on what politicians can spend. In particular, UK political parties have a limited number of TV spots they can use for "party political broadcasts".
While it may not be a perfect system, it does prevent UK politicians from being in the pocket of corporations in the way that seems common in the US.
Would this not be signed by his attorney, who might be able to argue that he took his client's word on it (I don't see anything in the declaration about a minimum amount of research needed).
Now if someone were to send a polite and informative letter to his attorney (with a proof of delivery), this attorney could be in a world of hurt if he proceeded.
According to a guy on this thread, this is the attorney.
You mean you're - thats the conjunction
Please crawl back under your rock.
Off topic, but I love this quote:
Jim Hacker: You know what they say about the average Common Market official: he has the organizing ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans, and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch and the intelligence of the Irish.
temporarily
I trust you are not connecting these two events? Floating ice will not increase mean sea levels by one micrometre.
:)
Complete nit pick, but surely floating ice contains air pockets, which increase the bouyancy of the iceberg/arctic ice sheet, and hence reduces the displacement. So if it melts you would expect a slight increase in sea levels. Maybe even by as much as a micrometre
They think we don't see it, but this is just another piece in the puzzle. Yes it's all begining to make sense.
The cybernetic rats are taking over. And they're pissed. Angered by the years of experiments, they have already taken over the scientists, and they are using them to take over all our technology. It's only a matter of time now...
Nope, it's the content author who gets to decide what you do with his work. That's the law, if you don't like it, tough shit.
No it's not the law. Fair use gives you the right to use a portion of someone's work, without their permision, and even against their express wishes. When machines interprate copyright law this is a right that you lose.
heh, fair enough. The first link you posted was interesting, thank-you.
The point I was actually trying to make (poorly quite possibly) was more about public opinion, rather than scientific - ie Americans seem to be the only nationality I've met where a large percentage of the public don't take climate change seriously.
My own view would be that enviromental alarmists are unhelpful - blaming the latest flood or storm on global warming isn't going to convice anyone who's sceptical - but the model behind global warming is sound enough. And the evidence, at the very least, does not contradict this model.
Anyway, CO2 related global warming is caused exclusively by fossile fuels, and these will run out sooner or later. Trying to move away from, and increase the efficency of, these sources of energy seems like a smart move to me.
While both points you make are true, this still doesn't make global warming either non-existent or a good thing.
Climate change causes disruption. Sure some areas that are now barren may become fertile, but the effect on some now hospitable (and therefore highly populated) regions will be devastating. Sure the climate will still change due to perfectly natural reasons, but trying to keep this change as small as possible is simple common sense.
OK, now for the flamebait. Why is it only the US where there is a large number of people who reject the whole global warming theory? I've heard arguments (from Americans) that it's all a plot to damage the US economy. Do people really believe that?
Marx Brothers vs Warner Brothers
I agree, I know it must have sentimental attachment for a lot of people, but it's a real factor in slowing adoption.
FOSS applications are great if you're trying to supply low-cost computers, but not if you have to explain the name to each and every customer - it's just not worth the hassle.
Hacker: Do we ever get our own way with the French?
Humphrey: Sometimes.
Hacker: When was the last time?
Humphrey: Battle of Waterloo, 1853.
It would beat the hell out of waking up with a traffic cone..
The problem with "free" is that there is no free lunch. The problem with Thermonuclear fusion is that it is producing HEAT. Even used to produce electricity, the end result (at my computer or light bulb or whatever) is HEAT.
See Peter F Hamilton's fantastic Night's Dawn Trilogy for a great description of Earth suffering the effects of 40 billion consumers of cheap fusion power.