Can you assign multiple IPv4 addresses to your network card on your PC?
You can, and if they are in the same subnet it will even work. If they are NOT in the same network, it works until it doesn't. There are important cases where it works flawlessly, like if every other machine in the same subnet ALSO has an address in both subnets. Good luck enforcing them.
And yes, I'll likely get a hundred replies with "multiple addresses in different subnets work for fine me". Good for you. Don't touch anything, and if you do, don't complain when it breaks.
In IPv6 it actually works, as long as all routers are aware of it or all hosts with multiple addresses do policy routing to hit the right router. Those are workable conditions, you can build a good network like that.
once they've excavated what your MAC address is, telling your router to route traffic to your node is trivial.
If they can administer your router, it is trivial to discover your MAC address whether you use IPv4 or IPv6 and whether you pick static or automatic assignments. The MAC address is kept in the ARP table for IPv4 and in the neighbor table for IPv6.
Anyway, every modern OS supports privacy extensions to autoconf, so just enable that (they will likely be enabled already). It's a bitch to write firewall rules when the IP address changes daily though.
On my home network, I've got my own machines, and I have my work laptop. Since my work laptop isn't allowed to join my "home" workgroup, there is no DNS which will work between by laptop and my machine. I can't change that part of my network config either.
There is Zeroconf, which Apple calls Bonjour. Your machines probably already speak it.
Edison's lightbulb is a really bad example. Edison took something which was already working in a lab (wire emitting light when you send electricity through it) and made it actually useful. Before Edison it was a scientific curiousity.
That is not fundamental research, it is directed product development.
... and therefore leave your fingerprints on the ballot, making it easy to identify your vote.
Not scalable. You can identify a few voters that way, but not a significant amount.
Paper voting is relatively easy to subvert if you only want to move a few votes. Just become part of the vote counting and spoil votes you don't like. Attacks which are no better than that are not worth worrying about.
Yes, but that only solves a tiny part of the problem. The machines themselves could be compromised or buggy, and I cannot verify that. Volunteering to be next to the machine does not help anything.
Exactly, any secure voting system has to be totally open.
Are you sure that you want votes to be public record? I promise you, some employers will use past voting records when making decisions about who to employ.
It kind of is, because you could engage in vote sniping right before the election closes... Of course that would require CAPTCHA or the bad guys would automate it and always win.
Because I am putting them in a box with lots of other votes, and I can stay and watch how the votes are handled. You could, in theory, put a camera in a voting booth, but it would be a bit challenging because volunteers are setting them up and taking them down. Doable for a few booths, but if done on a large scale it would likely be detected.
That means you can sell your vote and prove who you voted for. In the past it was common in some countries for employers to demand that their employees vote "appropriately", and the same can happen today with spouses.
You can defeat that by letting people vote several times with only one of the votes actually counting (so you can prove to your spouse that you voted for Kodos while you actually changed the vote to Kang). However, if you do that, you cannot then use the tokens to prove that the counting was fraudulent.
But if you don't trust the humans operating the machines then why do you trust the humans counting the votes in a paper-based election?
Because I can volunteer to do it myself. Even if some are corrupt, they would only be able to move a few votes each, and it would be difficult to do undetected. If there was suspicion of fraud in one election, a lot of people would volunteer in the next.
How do you know the votes are not being reported to the secret police?
Voting machines which do not provide a paper trail are of course completely insane, just like no one who likes democracy would install any kind of networking, especially not wireless in a voting machine. However, even somewhat-sane voting machine proposals fail at transparency; the average Slashdot reader is unable to verify that they do exactly what they are supposed to and nothing else, and the general public is even worse off.
The only voting machines you can trust are purely mechanical devices which e.g. punch a hole in a card. And we've already seen where that leads...
They aren't either -- offering, that is. Peter Madsen is the only one going; although perhaps eventually others in the core team may get to try too. If you get to go, it will be because you have been part of building it, and in that case you have an intimate insight into the risks involved.
The three step process has been modified somewhat:
1) ??? 2) Profit! 3) Launch stuff into space
Stage 1 is already over... You too can contribute, see raketvenner.
Re:kernel 3.2 was released only 5 months ago
on
Linux 3.4 Released
·
· Score: 2
I beg to differ. This is the kernel not some userland app or even a daemon. Stable releases are supposed to be reliable enough to trust with billions of dollars in data flow and human life support systems on the day of release.
In Linux, that level of QA has been moved to the distributors. The only QA done on the official release is that volunteers have tried the release candidates. Some volunteers run compile/test farms, at least sometimes.
People who run life critical systems can generally afford to pay for the kind of testing they need. It is certainly difficult to find volunteers willing to do it.
As the GP pointed, he's time-shifting. Nothing illegal here.
That isn't how copyright law works. You don't get to download from someone else even if you own the exact same bits from a legal source. See What Colour are your bits?.
As a matter of fact, my Taiwanese friends are under the impression that if China decides to assert her ownership of Taiwan, the US would huff and puff and wouldn't do shit about it; hence why the Taiwanese diaspora here in the US.
That is what the USSR thought about Cuba and Argentina thought about the Falklands. Both different from Taiwan, of course, history never truly repeats itself.
Most US citizens do not know the subtleties of Taiwan history, and they would not reelect a president who let China take Taiwan.
If solar cells keep improving their cost/benefit at the current rate and electric car uptake does not speed up dramatically, mid-day electricity will come from solar cells in most of the world.
Either way, we are too far away from 50% electric cars to really worry about that kind of thing. The power infrastructure will likely look quite different in 10 or 20 years.
We refill flying planes with other flying planes and you think this is 'far from simple?
The military does that. No civilian planes do, AFAIK. In-air refuelling would save LOTS of fuel on long trips; if it was practical it would surely be in use.
Whether the target is 8MW or 1MW, we're still a long way from matching the recharge rate possible with chemical energy.
It is a little bit unfair to only look at the time spent while physically filling the tank though, at least if we are talking about a station which does not let you pay by card at the pump (and strangely those still exist). There is no reason to actually have to stand beside the electric car while it is filling up. At the very least you can be warm and dry inside the car for most of the fill-up, or you can be queueing to pay.
Anyway, surely the charging rate for this is higher than 40kW. According to Wikipedia, they were aiming for 90kW for "DC level 2" and significantly more than that for "DC level 3".
We might also all be safer if drivers had a 15 minute rest every 2 hours...
Slashdot Mirror
Can you assign multiple IPv4 addresses to your network card on your PC?
You can, and if they are in the same subnet it will even work. If they are NOT in the same network, it works until it doesn't. There are important cases where it works flawlessly, like if every other machine in the same subnet ALSO has an address in both subnets. Good luck enforcing them.
And yes, I'll likely get a hundred replies with "multiple addresses in different subnets work for fine me". Good for you. Don't touch anything, and if you do, don't complain when it breaks.
In IPv6 it actually works, as long as all routers are aware of it or all hosts with multiple addresses do policy routing to hit the right router. Those are workable conditions, you can build a good network like that.
once they've excavated what your MAC address is, telling your router to route traffic to your node is trivial.
If they can administer your router, it is trivial to discover your MAC address whether you use IPv4 or IPv6 and whether you pick static or automatic assignments. The MAC address is kept in the ARP table for IPv4 and in the neighbor table for IPv6.
Anyway, every modern OS supports privacy extensions to autoconf, so just enable that (they will likely be enabled already). It's a bitch to write firewall rules when the IP address changes daily though.
On my home network, I've got my own machines, and I have my work laptop. Since my work laptop isn't allowed to join my "home" workgroup, there is no DNS which will work between by laptop and my machine. I can't change that part of my network config either.
There is Zeroconf, which Apple calls Bonjour. Your machines probably already speak it.
Edison's lightbulb is a really bad example. Edison took something which was already working in a lab (wire emitting light when you send electricity through it) and made it actually useful. Before Edison it was a scientific curiousity.
That is not fundamental research, it is directed product development.
Doesn't work. You can't prove that the client computers and the servers run precisely the software you have reviewed and nothing else.
... and therefore leave your fingerprints on the ballot, making it easy to identify your vote.
Not scalable. You can identify a few voters that way, but not a significant amount.
Paper voting is relatively easy to subvert if you only want to move a few votes. Just become part of the vote counting and spoil votes you don't like. Attacks which are no better than that are not worth worrying about.
Yes, but that only solves a tiny part of the problem. The machines themselves could be compromised or buggy, and I cannot verify that. Volunteering to be next to the machine does not help anything.
Exactly, any secure voting system has to be totally open.
Are you sure that you want votes to be public record? I promise you, some employers will use past voting records when making decisions about who to employ.
So that is no real protection either.
It kind of is, because you could engage in vote sniping right before the election closes... Of course that would require CAPTCHA or the bad guys would automate it and always win.
Because I am putting them in a box with lots of other votes, and I can stay and watch how the votes are handled. You could, in theory, put a camera in a voting booth, but it would be a bit challenging because volunteers are setting them up and taking them down. Doable for a few booths, but if done on a large scale it would likely be detected.
Banking isn't secret. If you want to prove to someone how much is in your bank account, you can ask the bank to provide proof.
If you do away with secrecy, online voting becomes a solvable problem.
That means you can sell your vote and prove who you voted for. In the past it was common in some countries for employers to demand that their employees vote "appropriately", and the same can happen today with spouses.
You can defeat that by letting people vote several times with only one of the votes actually counting (so you can prove to your spouse that you voted for Kodos while you actually changed the vote to Kang). However, if you do that, you cannot then use the tokens to prove that the counting was fraudulent.
But if you don't trust the humans operating the machines then why do you trust the humans counting the votes in a paper-based election?
Because I can volunteer to do it myself. Even if some are corrupt, they would only be able to move a few votes each, and it would be difficult to do undetected. If there was suspicion of fraud in one election, a lot of people would volunteer in the next.
Online voting could be made secure, assuming that political will actually wants a secure system.
How do you know it was done securely? How will you verify it?
Unless you give up on secrecy, in which case it becomes a lot easier.
How do you know the votes are not being reported to the secret police?
Voting machines which do not provide a paper trail are of course completely insane, just like no one who likes democracy would install any kind of networking, especially not wireless in a voting machine. However, even somewhat-sane voting machine proposals fail at transparency; the average Slashdot reader is unable to verify that they do exactly what they are supposed to and nothing else, and the general public is even worse off.
The only voting machines you can trust are purely mechanical devices which e.g. punch a hole in a card. And we've already seen where that leads...
but I'm not offering to put humans into space
They aren't either -- offering, that is. Peter Madsen is the only one going; although perhaps eventually others in the core team may get to try too. If you get to go, it will be because you have been part of building it, and in that case you have an intimate insight into the risks involved.
And don't think I don't get pissed at idiot engineers who design things for the "average" person
If you can weld, maybe you can help them scale their design up a bit. That is also the only chance to fly the thing, they won't be selling tickets.
What's their business plan?
The three step process has been modified somewhat:
1) ???
2) Profit!
3) Launch stuff into space
Stage 1 is already over... You too can contribute, see raketvenner.
I beg to differ. This is the kernel not some userland app or even a daemon. Stable releases are supposed to be reliable enough to trust with billions of dollars in data flow and human life support systems on the day of release.
In Linux, that level of QA has been moved to the distributors. The only QA done on the official release is that volunteers have tried the release candidates. Some volunteers run compile/test farms, at least sometimes.
People who run life critical systems can generally afford to pay for the kind of testing they need. It is certainly difficult to find volunteers willing to do it.
As the GP pointed, he's time-shifting. Nothing illegal here.
That isn't how copyright law works. You don't get to download from someone else even if you own the exact same bits from a legal source. See What Colour are your bits?.
As a matter of fact, my Taiwanese friends are under the impression that if China decides to assert her ownership of Taiwan, the US would huff and puff and wouldn't do shit about it; hence why the Taiwanese diaspora here in the US.
That is what the USSR thought about Cuba and Argentina thought about the Falklands. Both different from Taiwan, of course, history never truly repeats itself.
Most US citizens do not know the subtleties of Taiwan history, and they would not reelect a president who let China take Taiwan.
If solar cells keep improving their cost/benefit at the current rate and electric car uptake does not speed up dramatically, mid-day electricity will come from solar cells in most of the world.
Either way, we are too far away from 50% electric cars to really worry about that kind of thing. The power infrastructure will likely look quite different in 10 or 20 years.
We refill flying planes with other flying planes and you think this is 'far from simple?
The military does that. No civilian planes do, AFAIK. In-air refuelling would save LOTS of fuel on long trips; if it was practical it would surely be in use.
Prius uses NiMH, no modern pure-electric cars use NiMH. You cannot really use the Prius for any statistics applying to other electric vehicles.
Not that I think it will be a problem, and even if it does, the used batteries will surely be valuable as resources for new ones.
Whether the target is 8MW or 1MW, we're still a long way from matching the recharge rate possible with chemical energy.
It is a little bit unfair to only look at the time spent while physically filling the tank though, at least if we are talking about a station which does not let you pay by card at the pump (and strangely those still exist). There is no reason to actually have to stand beside the electric car while it is filling up. At the very least you can be warm and dry inside the car for most of the fill-up, or you can be queueing to pay.
Anyway, surely the charging rate for this is higher than 40kW. According to Wikipedia, they were aiming for 90kW for "DC level 2" and significantly more than that for "DC level 3".
We might also all be safer if drivers had a 15 minute rest every 2 hours...