Although I agree that people seem to have no reason to switch (you've shown things work with imperial measurements fo day to day life), I thing you've got a few misconceptions about the day to day use of the metric system.
Similarly, temperatures are more useful for most people in imperial. For example, when looking at the weather, a really cold, freezing day is in the -20s, down in Florida, we don't get cold, but we get hot days in the upper 90s (areas of Texas get low triple digits, and heat waves can hit the 120s), this gives us a range of temperatures of 140 degrees. The same Celsius range is -30 C - 50 C, a useful range of 80, so for gauging temperatures, the Imperial system is easier for the weather. In addition, if I want to say something is in the low 80s (80 F - 84 F), I get 27 C - 29 C, so upper 20s does the same thing, but something like upper 80s or lower 90s collides in the metric system in the low 30s.
Don't think it is very different in metric units. In my case, I know that 20C or a little more is and ideal temperature for people, more than 30 is hot, more than 40 is very hot. Same thing going colder, 10C is somewhat cold, 0C is freezing point, less than -10C is so fucking cold you don't care anymore (YMMV, where I live, temperature rarely gets below 0C). Since we do not have two competing systems, when you say it's 35 degrees everyone here knows it's fucking hot. You just get used to it.
I can eyeball a person and easily describe their height... the range of heights in normal conversations of adults is 5'0" - 6'4", 1.52m - 1.93m. The fact is for describing heights, the discrete inches (17 here) component is more useful than the.4m over a continuous range.
Not really. Since everybody has precision limits, it get discretized anyway. You'll never hear someone saying he's 1.753946293 metres tall (hell, you'll never hear 1.93 either). Just estimate to the nearest 5 cm multiple: "He's 1.65 metres tall". No big problem on that one.
The 2x4 is such a useful component coming in 8 ft, 10ft, and 12ft lengths. Switch construction to metric would be useless (if you needing to keep makiing things in 8 ft increments anyway) or require a cultural acceptance of 240 cm ceilings (between 7'10 and 7'11).
The reason that 2.4 metres seems so awkward is because you keep comparing it to imperial units. 8ft (2.4384 metres acording to google) is just as arbitrary as 2.4 metres (7.87401575 feet). I could use the same argument as you and say americans are so weird that they make the ceilings 2.4384 metres high instead of 2.4, which is more reasonable.
That's a moot point anyway because if you do not need that kind of precision 1 ft = 30cm is good enough, so 8 ft = 2.4m. BTW, you might want to check if your 8ft tall building material isn't really 2.4m tall, I wouldn't be surprised if it were.
The reason to convert to metric is very simple: because everyone else is using it, and it has no stupid unit conversion problems (let alone several different units with same name).
Anyway, conversion can't be that painful. I mean, nobody's arguing how complex is life now that you've got two litre cola bottles.
I have to disagree with you, I live in a metric country so I'm not accustomed with the imperial system. I did try to use the advantage of using parts of my body as a measuring rule, and I really gotten nowhere. There really is no precise match, and I couldn't even find the right part to measure inches (no part of my fingers seem to measure 2,54cm). If I tried to make any precise work (inch/centimetre range) doing what you say I would end up doing a really crappy job.
The only way I managed to use a body part for measuring is my height, and it is not really precise. And the resulting "ruler" is metric, since I know my height in centimetres.
Come on, quit lying to yourselves. When you need to do some work with a reasonable amount of precision you use a ruler, like everybody else (only yours in in inches and mine is in cm).
Except the US is not the owner (king, whatever) of the Internet. We saw a few months ago what would happen in this situation at the ICANN summit in Morocco.
The US congress is not the authority in most of the world, and if they tried to pull something like this, don't you think some countries would feel theatened (EU countries, chinese sphere of influence, etc). They would probably see that move as fundamentalists trying to screw the Internet, and also a threat to commercial interests (imagine someone declaring a French company "obscene" and cancelling its.com domain).
It would probably crack the DNS service in two, and lots of otherwise neutral countries would follow if they're allowed independence.
It wouldn't be that easy for the US to decide what goes to.xxx and what not. And if they're interested, they should do it on.xxx.us anyway.
You suggest.localdomain, Apple (Bonjour) suggests.local, some suggest.localnet. I suggest that ICANN and the world stop mucking about and reserve one ala RFC1918. I don't really care what it is (as long as it's not too long or stupid), just frigging reserve one already.
Reserving a name, or defining a standard behaviour might be a good idea, sure. It could act as a SHOULD clause (there's no way of enforcing a MUST here). That could be done just by taking ANY domain, declaring it private and forbidding it from being used in the public Internet. It could be any arbitrary domain (example.net is one of those, but it is not appropiate to use it, even in private networks).
If you specified "here" as an NNTP server you would be trying to access the local server on port 119, I see no reason why you'd end up at the local server's webserver on port 80. They are different ports, capable of running different services without confusion. So what's the problem? Same goes for ssh and other stuff. If you'd prefer news.here that's fine.
The problem is the "local server" part. Who said there is ONE local server and not LOTS of them? If you had two physical machines, your idea would not work (pointing "here" to the NNTP server would break WWW requests). "here" will have to point to one machine at one time, you will have to set something that redirects traffic from one to another, a waste of resources.
"news.here" on the other hand, is a pretty reasonable way of doing things (news.here, www.here, etc). Then again, if you know the local domain, or have an appropiate search path, it is just as good to use "news", "www", etc.
Basically, the "here" suffix serves as a placeholder when someone does not know what the local domain is (works more like the local network (0.0.0.0) and local broadcast (255.255.255.255) addresses, instead of the private ones). If you want to make the equivalent of rfc 1918 addresses, it would still mean you need to know what the local domain is. In other words, you're mixing two things (local network/local broadcast and rfc 1918).
As for ssh and here, let's use my home network as an example. In this network we have the machines "grissom", "leonov", "gagarin" and "armstrong". What would "ssh.here" mean? I could define some criteria, making one of them more important, thus making it worthy of the "ssh.here" name. But it would be pretty useless, I should know where I'm going to when using ssh, and have defined "here" myself, and "public ssh service" is a very strange concept.
Believe me, I have had a lot of time to think about this and after all these years it still makes sense. I submitted a draft to the IETF in 2001 (and earlier to ICANN). If you think my proposal is convoluted/complex you should see the other proposals which create new proprietary "lock in" protocols to do fairly specialized things in similar areas.
My proposal uses _existing_ technology already available, and allows extensions. People can easily add stuff to it.
The fact that other proposals as complex and convoluted does not man that yours, just for being simpler, is better. DNS is NOT the right tool for what you want to do. You want some sort of discovery of local services, you should invent some simple discovery method and put it in the public domain, that would guarantee that there is no lock-in involved. Even a DHCP extension might be more appropiate. And DNS could be subverted and lock in created anyway, just look at how microsoft uses it.
DNS exists (ignoring records other than A) to answer just one question: "Could you give me the ip address of the machine that has this name?". You're trying to use A records for something else.
If you really need to find what the local resources are, why don't you read SRV records instead (if available)?
About.xxx, are you really having so much trouble finding porn in the Internet that you need.xxx?;-).xxx is more justifiable than.biz or.info, but that really means that we should get rid of those two, and not create.xxx.
WRT.here, I think your proposal is a nice idea in principle, but not very practical. First, you need to know which DNS is local to your location. That means you need to know at least something about the network, which means a chat with the local admin or getting some parameters via DHCP. In both cases you get to know the local domain (DHCP sends that too, usually).
Then, your solution is too www-centric. Let's assume it is possible to do what you're saying (in fact, you can emulate that behaviour with dns as it is right now). So, you want to check what's here. You type http://here/ and it takes you to the "local webserver" (whatever that means). Great. Now, you want to read news. You enter "here" as an nntp server and you go to the local webserver, not the NNTP server. DNS does not care about ports, only addresses (DOH!).
Now, how do you apply your solution to SSH? You don't because it is not reasonable to do so. Same for lots of other protocols. Basically, you are adding additional semantics to the ones defined in DNS (the rfcs specify what the db entries mean, and there's nothing about "here"). Whatever you do, you must consider that older clients and servers are still around, and will be for years. Backwards compatibility is a must.
It is also a problem, unless everyone has a dns server in every home. Let's say you have the typical Joe Sixpack setup: broadband, with dns, mail, etc provided by yur ISP, what would "airconditioner.here" mean? My house? Your house? The isp's datacenter? You could make it change depending the source ip, but it would complicate matters considerably.
You might have entities that don't have www servers, like my home. http://here/ would mean nothing useful (unless you count my linksys box as the "local webserver", not very reasonable).
You're assuming that Internet is just www servers, which it isn't. You're making exactly the same mistake as the.xxx guys, yours is for good, theirs is for evil, but it is the exact mistake.
Anyway, you could easily do as you want (on your domains of course), just by appending the local domain by default (you could send that via dhcp). That's what the "localdomain" domain is commonly used for. So, you could easily end with "http://airconditioner/set?temp=25c" or even set a "here" fake top level zone in your local dns server. When in doubt, try the "localdomain" domain. Me, I just use the domain I got from dyndns as a local domain and that works pretty well.
There is no.xxx domain because it is already known how good such course of action is. Now, they've made one in order to allow some organization to get some easy cash, while screwing us all with all this "think of the children" stuff. Gee, thanks a lot for listening to what the technical community has to say.
(At least read the title of the document linked, it says a lot)
BTW, I agree with you on TLDs, only country codes should be allowed as TLDs.
Those relativistic effects you're talking about would manifest if the object is massive enough, and the orbiting object is close enough. Something like that happens to mercury, but the effect is not that big.
So, for these effects to manifest, it is not necessary for the orbiter to be inside within the space used to be occupied by the star. If a star collapses and the orbiting planet remains in the same orbit, the relativistic effects will be the same as they were (under the same assumptions as GP post).
Now, if you allow the planet to move towards the newly formed black hole, the relativistic effects will increased. So, the closer you are, the bigger the dilation (always from a distant observer). So, it is not necessary to be where the star used to be, but it sure helps.
About what you added (".. there is no more comparison possible because no information could exit.."), there is one point you cross as you aproach the black hole. It's called the event horizon, that is a point of no return, once you cross it, you'll hit the singularity (the center of the black hole). Once the orbiter crosses the horizon, you'll never know anything about it anymore, and it'll eventually be destroyed. That's what you were talking about.
The event horizon is definitely going to be inside the radius of the former star, but there should be some space between the event horizon and the radius of the former star.
The GP poster was talking about an object close to the black hole but outside the event horizon. Your guess was inside the event horizon.
Shouldn't it be possible to use a directional antenna or some similar technology, from several points around the globe to locate the source of the transmissions with a reasonably high degree of precision?
I don't even have a SW radio, so everyhing I'm saying is second hand at best, but it's been done already. The SOURCE is not a very useful piece of data, though.
The Lincolnshire Poacher is almost certainly being broadcast from a RAF base in cyprus. Now you know that whenever LP is active, british intelligence might, or might not, be sending a message to one of its spies. You don't know the message sent, the recipient or even if it was just junk to fill a scheduled broadcast. And the british make it bloody obvious it's them, go pick a mp3 or ten from the net, and keep in mind that the LP is an english folk song.
I don't know if there's something special about wyoming that you're mentioning it, but in that case what I would be thinking is: "The CIA is sending another message". The only weird thing is that wyoming is inland, and facing canada, but there might be something interesting about that location (next time, replace "wyoming" with "florida"). Anyway, if you want to know who's broadcasting what, click here.
The important pieces of data are the RECIPIENT or the MESSAGE, good luck finding any of these two.
If Web 2.0 means sites that aggregate info that isn't boring, how can that fail? If it refers to sites like Facebook, where people can connect with real people.....
It's not the "connection" part that will fail, it's the economic part. Sure, you might make the best site ever, holding the most interesting collection of data of the whole universe. That does not mean that you will make enough money by selling ads. Also note that ads get in the way of when you intend to have faster loading times and going straight to the interesting data.
Making a great site and earning cash from the sale of ads is exactly the same plan as used during the.com bust. The only thing that changed is the technology used (and barely, web 2.0 are either web sites or web services (remote procedure calls over http, RPC was invented decades ago and http is just for avoiding firewalls)). There's nothing really new.
I really don't care about that web 2.0 thing. If it interests me, I go see that web site (since it can display on my unaltered web browser, it must be a web site). If it's shit, I'll never even notice it. And all that while using adblock in what I call "carpet bombing mode". Go try to get me to see some ads if you can!
Remember: it's still a bust if the company goes bankrupt.
The reason I use it is because I consider it to be the right tool for mobile low power computing. It'll work for two weeks just on two AAA NiMH cells, it has the right size and weight and it is simple enough for the tasks I use it for (phonebook, notepad, password safe and generator, plus a few network oriented tasks). If I needed to do number crunching, I could easily contact my computer at home via SSH. The only thing that might have been a good idea is a SD card reader.
I also like to keep my devices simple. If you have an all-in-one thing, then you have to carry and power all these functions all the time. In my case, if the cell phone battery dies, I just have no cell communications, but the PDA is unaffected. In a multi use device, the battery might have a greater capacity, but you'll be forced to power that radio transmitter, like it or not. Eventually your battery will be drained and you're out of everything (ignore this for devices that MANUALLY let the user power down some functions). It's he same thing for hardware failures. If my PDA breaks, I just have no password generator, etc, and it costs some small amount of money to replace. If your device breaks, it costs you a lot.
But the point is that no matter how good is QC, all an attacker has to do (provided he cannot bribe an operator or infiltrate a spy) is to buy two of these boxes and set a man in the middle attack. Assuming nobody does something stupid with keying material in classic cryptography, these boxes are as good as any other diffie-hellman boxes you could buy for much less.
These devices provide a means of not getting your keys compromised because someone had the chance to copy them, but is does nothing else. It has some advantages, but they're not so great.
Plus, as someone else posted, after the man in the middle attack the fibre is broken and has to be replaced. Nasty, even if you just cut the fiber to deny the use of the channel.
So I guess this article on how to configure Ubuntu to authentic through Active Directory is a figment of my imagination since Active Directory is 100% only available to Windows?
That does not mean MS made active directory interoperable with unix, it is a nice solution, but it was probably reverse engineered.
Nothing prevents microsoft from making subtle changes that break the compatibility. I have also not seen a windows machine willing to authenticate in a "domain like" fashion using something else than AD (which would be no technical barrier, since AD is really a bastardized LDAP and a bastardized kerberos 5).
Would you say that microsoft makes smb interoperable bacause samba exists? I don't think so. Same goes for AD. If you think AD is so open, i'm sure a few people in the EU would be interested to ask a few questions about what you know.
If you look at that fact that NSA published SELinux improvements, or the amount of noise/FUD that Green Hills Software (which competes with gcc) has made in the press about the "dangers" of open-source software, I'd say it's fairly certain that GPL software is being used by the military; and in sufficient volume for commercial competitors to be upset about it.
FYI, NSA published SELinux, period. They made the original stuff that was improved later. It was quite an event too, and they're still hosting the mailing list IIRC.
Here in Buenos Aires we have something like that, and I use it often enough. The photos are useful (among other things) for looking the address of a shop or house you know is in a certain block.
Then again, it may be a money sink, I don't (and wouldn't) pay for access to such site, ours is provided by the city government.
(No, you cannot have the link. The last thing I want is getting the map slashdotted. Find it yourself if you're so interested, it's easy).
Reminds me of a project the Argentinian military presented about a year ago in a security congress I went to.
The idea was to "fingerprint" hacking attempts by measuring timing in typing on terminals. Say, a hacker would attack a system, a fingerprint would be taken (of the unknown hacker's typing habits) and then on another break-in, a new fingerprint would be taken and compared to previous ones to determine if it is a formely filed hacker.
Another possibility from that idea was to use the fingerprint also to verify the user's identity (you have to enter a password, but the server also fingerprints you and denies access if the fingerprint does not match).
Definitely one of the best expositions in the congress. Pity I cannot find any papers. I found the original presentation, in spanish though, by searching for "Remote identification of keystroke patterns" on google.
I don't think it makes sense to drop 500 (or 1000) tons of explosives in a hole, blowing it up and pretending it to be a nuke. Such a small explosion would certainly give the idea of a fizzle, showing that NK does not have weapons yet (since the "prototype" failed). It would also show that a nuclear capability is imminent, so everyone interested would be acting to prevent that.
On the other hand, gun type bombs are not really tested that much. Little boy went straight to hiroshima without testing, because the scientists thought it would work (unlike fat-man, they did the trinity test for that).
Besides, North Korea was producing plutonium, that if I remember correctly, cannot be used in gun type bombs (it detonates too soon, blows apart and you get a dud).
I think they were testing their implosion bomb, and it fizzled. That does not mean they do not have a few gun types in a bunker somewhere.
I'm a network administrator and I've been noting (and every administrator on the planet too, I guess) that at least since april this year, in the days following patch tuesday (I call that "black friday") there is a new batch of exploits, and there are usually no MS exploits (the last month being an exception) until the next black friday.
Let's face it. If MS chooses a specific day to release al its patches of the month, it's logical that blackhats will choose a day that gives their exploits more bang for the buck.
Response time for MS if effectively 30 days (unless it happens to involve their DRM), and everybody knows it. Get used to it.
Re:You Misunderstand: Feature Good, Process Bad
on
IE7 Toolbar Mayhem
·
· Score: 1
This is how the system has worked up until Vista. Do you think it has been a success ?
No, this is not how IE worked until vista. With earlier IE versions, the user is NOT ASKED, as both the GP post and you say, but the action IS ALLOWED. The GP poster seems to imply that all these actions that cause the security popups should be rejected, without even informing the user (enforcing a rule saying that toolbars cannot access any part from the system except IE, period).
Maybe Nintendo couldn't get fully-functional, reliable drivers for current chipsets like the rest of us.
What you see as funny, I see as an oportunity. Nintendo will get drivers for the wii chipset, and, being linux under the GPL, it could be an excellent oportunity to get some open source drivers.
Even if they use binary drivers, there will be some sort of stub module that can be used to interface with the binary portion. That driver will probably be useful somewhere else, unless the wii is 100% custom hardware.
Cheap? You can buy one gigabyte of either CF or SD for USD30, in Argentina (so it's more expensive because it's imported). USD 44 for a gigabyte of flash memory is a ripoff.
Memory sticks were never cheap, and the only reason people buy it is because they are locked into the format.
You can plug a CF card straight into your IDE chain and it will read as a drive just fine.
Just like any Memory Stick. Or SD card. Or any of the other formats. That's why card readers are so dirt cheap.
I think the GP poster means that you can plug it into your IDE chain without translating anything. The interface is one of a IDE disk. I've seen CF to IDE adaptors, they only have 1 or 2 resistors, and the rest is just a straight mechanical adaptor.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or you're just in a bad mood, but I've noted that on all your three posts on this thread you mention the "Top 14 excuses". In the post I'm replying to, that list has no relation whatsoever with the rest of the post, it's just glued there like a sig. If I had mod points, I would have modded your post as "troll" (to any mod reading this, down a bit, not to -1).
Putting that list in all your posts is really counterproductive (if you want to make participate in the discussion I mean, if you're really trolling ignore what I've said).
As for your post, I agree with the others. Never seen the bug you're talking about (minimal CPU usage right now), but FF is a memory hog (hoards memory, but is tolerable). 1.5 also has a few annoying behaviours, like drag and drop crap (if anyone knows how to disable that, tell me) or middle click to paste (already disabled). In fact, I'm impressed that it turned out pretty stable, considering all I've been hearing about 1.5. I did keep 1.0 until a critical update forced me to upgrade, though.
(Using 1.5.0.6 on suse 10)
Re:Still not too bad
on
Crypto Snake Oil
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Would you please explain why gaim-encryption is weak?
OTR might be a better choice for social communications, as explained in the paper, but that does not make gaim-encryption (or PGP, etc) weak. For its intended purpose both PGP and gaim-encryption seem strong.
If I wanted to authenticate and keep a message secret from eavesdroppers, I would have no problems using gaim-encryption. At work, non-repudiation is really not a problem, and if my key was compromised, IM compromise would be my smallest problem (assuming that with that key, my SSH and PGP ones were compromised too).
If you know gaim-encryption is weak, I'd like to hear about it. But it looks to me that it is strong, provided you know what you're getting into.
My response is that you need atleast 3+ IT sections that all have equal ability. One should do work and be logged, you don't trust any of them, so you have the other 2 sections check up on everything. The problem is that you have to be able to afford a large staff for that solution. If you only have 3 IT guys, well, you would just be SOL if one of them wants to sell your info to the highest bidder.
And my response to your response is that if you do this and treat the IT people bad enough, you get a conspiracy.
It is very good not to give the keys of the kingdom to a single person (or section). But that is no substitute to treating the most important people in the company well (if they can do serious damage as we are all thinking, they are VERY important).
You can use technology to move the role of critical person around, but eventually it rests on someone's (or some group's) shoulder. If you do not trust that someone, you're screwed. You could take the power off IT, but then it might be a manager who betrays you. If you move it to a group, things get harder, but there's a point where that group will betray you if enough of the people in it get frustrated.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't think it is very different in metric units. In my case, I know that 20C or a little more is and ideal temperature for people, more than 30 is hot, more than 40 is very hot. Same thing going colder, 10C is somewhat cold, 0C is freezing point, less than -10C is so fucking cold you don't care anymore (YMMV, where I live, temperature rarely gets below 0C). Since we do not have two competing systems, when you say it's 35 degrees everyone here knows it's fucking hot. You just get used to it.
Not really. Since everybody has precision limits, it get discretized anyway. You'll never hear someone saying he's 1.753946293 metres tall (hell, you'll never hear 1.93 either). Just estimate to the nearest 5 cm multiple: "He's 1.65 metres tall". No big problem on that one.
The reason that 2.4 metres seems so awkward is because you keep comparing it to imperial units. 8ft (2.4384 metres acording to google) is just as arbitrary as 2.4 metres (7.87401575 feet). I could use the same argument as you and say americans are so weird that they make the ceilings 2.4384 metres high instead of 2.4, which is more reasonable.
That's a moot point anyway because if you do not need that kind of precision 1 ft = 30cm is good enough, so 8 ft = 2.4m. BTW, you might want to check if your 8ft tall building material isn't really 2.4m tall, I wouldn't be surprised if it were.
The reason to convert to metric is very simple: because everyone else is using it, and it has no stupid unit conversion problems (let alone several different units with same name).
Anyway, conversion can't be that painful. I mean, nobody's arguing how complex is life now that you've got two litre cola bottles.
I have to disagree with you, I live in a metric country so I'm not accustomed with the imperial system. I did try to use the advantage of using parts of my body as a measuring rule, and I really gotten nowhere. There really is no precise match, and I couldn't even find the right part to measure inches (no part of my fingers seem to measure 2,54cm). If I tried to make any precise work (inch/centimetre range) doing what you say I would end up doing a really crappy job.
The only way I managed to use a body part for measuring is my height, and it is not really precise. And the resulting "ruler" is metric, since I know my height in centimetres.
Come on, quit lying to yourselves. When you need to do some work with a reasonable amount of precision you use a ruler, like everybody else (only yours in in inches and mine is in cm).
Except the US is not the owner (king, whatever) of the Internet.
.com domain).
.xxx and what not. And if they're interested, they should do it on .xxx.us anyway.
We saw a few months ago what would happen in this situation at the ICANN summit in Morocco.
The US congress is not the authority in most of the world, and if they tried to pull something like this, don't you think some countries would feel theatened (EU countries, chinese sphere of influence, etc). They would probably see that move as fundamentalists trying to screw the Internet, and also a threat to commercial interests (imagine someone declaring a French company "obscene" and cancelling its
It would probably crack the DNS service in two, and lots of otherwise neutral countries would follow if they're allowed independence.
It wouldn't be that easy for the US to decide what goes to
Reserving a name, or defining a standard behaviour might be a good idea, sure. It could act as a SHOULD clause (there's no way of enforcing a MUST here). That could be done just by taking ANY domain, declaring it private and forbidding it from being used in the public Internet. It could be any arbitrary domain (example.net is one of those, but it is not appropiate to use it, even in private networks).
The problem is the "local server" part. Who said there is ONE local server and not LOTS of them? If you had two physical machines, your idea would not work (pointing "here" to the NNTP server would break WWW requests). "here" will have to point to one machine at one time, you will have to set something that redirects traffic from one to another, a waste of resources.
"news.here" on the other hand, is a pretty reasonable way of doing things (news.here, www.here, etc). Then again, if you know the local domain, or have an appropiate search path, it is just as good to use "news", "www", etc.
Basically, the "here" suffix serves as a placeholder when someone does not know what the local domain is (works more like the local network (0.0.0.0) and local broadcast (255.255.255.255) addresses, instead of the private ones). If you want to make the equivalent of rfc 1918 addresses, it would still mean you need to know what the local domain is. In other words, you're mixing two things (local network/local broadcast and rfc 1918).
As for ssh and here, let's use my home network as an example. In this network we have the machines "grissom", "leonov", "gagarin" and "armstrong". What would "ssh.here" mean? I could define some criteria, making one of them more important, thus making it worthy of the "ssh.here" name. But it would be pretty useless, I should know where I'm going to when using ssh, and have defined "here" myself, and "public ssh service" is a very strange concept.
The fact that other proposals as complex and convoluted does not man that yours, just for being simpler, is better. DNS is NOT the right tool for what you want to do. You want some sort of discovery of local services, you should invent some simple discovery method and put it in the public domain, that would guarantee that there is no lock-in involved. Even a DHCP extension might be more appropiate. And DNS could be subverted and lock in created anyway, just look at how microsoft uses it.
DNS exists (ignoring records other than A) to answer just one question: "Could you give me the ip address of the machine that has this name?". You're trying to use A records for something else.
If you really need to find what the local resources are, why don't you read SRV records instead (if available)?
About .xxx, are you really having so much trouble finding porn in the Internet that you need .xxx? ;-) .xxx is more justifiable than .biz or .info, but that really means that we should get rid of those two, and not create .xxx.
.here, I think your proposal is a nice idea in principle, but not very practical.
.xxx guys, yours is for good, theirs is for evil, but it is the exact mistake.
WRT
First, you need to know which DNS is local to your location. That means you need to know at least something about the network, which means a chat with the local admin or getting some parameters via DHCP. In both cases you get to know the local domain (DHCP sends that too, usually).
Then, your solution is too www-centric. Let's assume it is possible to do what you're saying (in fact, you can emulate that behaviour with dns as it is right now). So, you want to check what's here. You type http://here/ and it takes you to the "local webserver" (whatever that means). Great. Now, you want to read news. You enter "here" as an nntp server and you go to the local webserver, not the NNTP server. DNS does not care about ports, only addresses (DOH!).
Now, how do you apply your solution to SSH? You don't because it is not reasonable to do so. Same for lots of other protocols. Basically, you are adding additional semantics to the ones defined in DNS (the rfcs specify what the db entries mean, and there's nothing about "here"). Whatever you do, you must consider that older clients and servers are still around, and will be for years. Backwards compatibility is a must.
It is also a problem, unless everyone has a dns server in every home. Let's say you have the typical Joe Sixpack setup: broadband, with dns, mail, etc provided by yur ISP, what would "airconditioner.here" mean? My house? Your house? The isp's datacenter? You could make it change depending the source ip, but it would complicate matters considerably.
You might have entities that don't have www servers, like my home. http://here/ would mean nothing useful (unless you count my linksys box as the "local webserver", not very reasonable).
You're assuming that Internet is just www servers, which it isn't. You're making exactly the same mistake as the
Anyway, you could easily do as you want (on your domains of course), just by appending the local domain by default (you could send that via dhcp). That's what the "localdomain" domain is commonly used for. So, you could easily end with "http://airconditioner/set?temp=25c" or even set a "here" fake top level zone in your local dns server. When in doubt, try the "localdomain" domain. Me, I just use the domain I got from dyndns as a local domain and that works pretty well.
There is no .xxx domain because it is already known how good such course of action is.
Now, they've made one in order to allow some organization to get some easy cash, while screwing us all with all this "think of the children" stuff. Gee, thanks a lot for listening to what the technical community has to say.
(At least read the title of the document linked, it says a lot)
BTW, I agree with you on TLDs, only country codes should be allowed as TLDs.
Close. IANAP, but let me try.
Those relativistic effects you're talking about would manifest if the object is massive enough, and the orbiting object is close enough. Something like that happens to mercury, but the effect is not that big.
So, for these effects to manifest, it is not necessary for the orbiter to be inside within the space used to be occupied by the star. If a star collapses and the orbiting planet remains in the same orbit, the relativistic effects will be the same as they were (under the same assumptions as GP post).
Now, if you allow the planet to move towards the newly formed black hole, the relativistic effects will increased. So, the closer you are, the bigger the dilation (always from a distant observer). So, it is not necessary to be where the star used to be, but it sure helps.
About what you added (".. there is no more comparison possible because no information could exit.."), there is one point you cross as you aproach the black hole. It's called the event horizon, that is a point of no return, once you cross it, you'll hit the singularity (the center of the black hole). Once the orbiter crosses the horizon, you'll never know anything about it anymore, and it'll eventually be destroyed. That's what you were talking about.
The event horizon is definitely going to be inside the radius of the former star, but there should be some space between the event horizon and the radius of the former star.
The GP poster was talking about an object close to the black hole but outside the event horizon. Your guess was inside the event horizon.
Or even better: wait a year and buy it when all the serious bugs are fixed. .0 version of anything, especially microsoft software.
Never buy a
I don't even have a SW radio, so everyhing I'm saying is second hand at best, but it's been done already. The SOURCE is not a very useful piece of data, though.
The Lincolnshire Poacher is almost certainly being broadcast from a RAF base in cyprus. Now you know that whenever LP is active, british intelligence might, or might not, be sending a message to one of its spies. You don't know the message sent, the recipient or even if it was just junk to fill a scheduled broadcast. And the british make it bloody obvious it's them, go pick a mp3 or ten from the net, and keep in mind that the LP is an english folk song.
I don't know if there's something special about wyoming that you're mentioning it, but in that case what I would be thinking is: "The CIA is sending another message". The only weird thing is that wyoming is inland, and facing canada, but there might be something interesting about that location (next time, replace "wyoming" with "florida"). Anyway, if you want to know who's broadcasting what, click here.
The important pieces of data are the RECIPIENT or the MESSAGE, good luck finding any of these two.
It's not the "connection" part that will fail, it's the economic part.
Sure, you might make the best site ever, holding the most interesting collection of data of the whole universe. That does not mean that you will make enough money by selling ads. Also note that ads get in the way of when you intend to have faster loading times and going straight to the interesting data.
Making a great site and earning cash from the sale of ads is exactly the same plan as used during the
I really don't care about that web 2.0 thing. If it interests me, I go see that web site (since it can display on my unaltered web browser, it must be a web site). If it's shit, I'll never even notice it. And all that while using adblock in what I call "carpet bombing mode". Go try to get me to see some ads if you can!
Remember: it's still a bust if the company goes bankrupt.
I do. I still have my Palm pilot IIIxe.
The reason I use it is because I consider it to be the right tool for mobile low power computing. It'll work for two weeks just on two AAA NiMH cells, it has the right size and weight and it is simple enough for the tasks I use it for (phonebook, notepad, password safe and generator, plus a few network oriented tasks). If I needed to do number crunching, I could easily contact my computer at home via SSH. The only thing that might have been a good idea is a SD card reader.
I also like to keep my devices simple. If you have an all-in-one thing, then you have to carry and power all these functions all the time. In my case, if the cell phone battery dies, I just have no cell communications, but the PDA is unaffected. In a multi use device, the battery might have a greater capacity, but you'll be forced to power that radio transmitter, like it or not. Eventually your battery will be drained and you're out of everything (ignore this for devices that MANUALLY let the user power down some functions). It's he same thing for hardware failures. If my PDA breaks, I just have no password generator, etc, and it costs some small amount of money to replace. If your device breaks, it costs you a lot.
But the point is that no matter how good is QC, all an attacker has to do (provided he cannot bribe an operator or infiltrate a spy) is to buy two of these boxes and set a man in the middle attack.
Assuming nobody does something stupid with keying material in classic cryptography, these boxes are as good as any other diffie-hellman boxes you could buy for much less.
These devices provide a means of not getting your keys compromised because someone had the chance to copy them, but is does nothing else. It has some advantages, but they're not so great.
Plus, as someone else posted, after the man in the middle attack the fibre is broken and has to be replaced. Nasty, even if you just cut the fiber to deny the use of the channel.
That does not mean MS made active directory interoperable with unix, it is a nice solution, but it was probably reverse engineered.
Nothing prevents microsoft from making subtle changes that break the compatibility. I have also not seen a windows machine willing to authenticate in a "domain like" fashion using something else than AD (which would be no technical barrier, since AD is really a bastardized LDAP and a bastardized kerberos 5).
Would you say that microsoft makes smb interoperable bacause samba exists?
I don't think so. Same goes for AD. If you think AD is so open, i'm sure a few people in the EU would be interested to ask a few questions about what you know.
FYI, NSA published SELinux, period.
They made the original stuff that was improved later.
It was quite an event too, and they're still hosting the mailing list IIRC.
Here in Buenos Aires we have something like that, and I use it often enough.
The photos are useful (among other things) for looking the address of a shop or house you know is in a certain block.
Then again, it may be a money sink, I don't (and wouldn't) pay for access to such site, ours is provided by the city government.
(No, you cannot have the link. The last thing I want is getting the map slashdotted. Find it yourself if you're so interested, it's easy).
Reminds me of a project the Argentinian military presented about a year ago in a security congress I went to.
The idea was to "fingerprint" hacking attempts by measuring timing in typing on terminals. Say, a hacker would attack a system, a fingerprint would be taken (of the unknown hacker's typing habits) and then on another break-in, a new fingerprint would be taken and compared to previous ones to determine if it is a formely filed hacker.
Another possibility from that idea was to use the fingerprint also to verify the user's identity (you have to enter a password, but the server also fingerprints you and denies access if the fingerprint does not match).
Definitely one of the best expositions in the congress. Pity I cannot find any papers. I found the original presentation, in spanish though, by searching for "Remote identification of keystroke patterns" on google.
I don't think it makes sense to drop 500 (or 1000) tons of explosives in a hole, blowing it up and pretending it to be a nuke. Such a small explosion would certainly give the idea of a fizzle, showing that NK does not have weapons yet (since the "prototype" failed). It would also show that a nuclear capability is imminent, so everyone interested would be acting to prevent that.
On the other hand, gun type bombs are not really tested that much. Little boy went straight to hiroshima without testing, because the scientists thought it would work (unlike fat-man, they did the trinity test for that).
Besides, North Korea was producing plutonium, that if I remember correctly, cannot be used in gun type bombs (it detonates too soon, blows apart and you get a dud).
I think they were testing their implosion bomb, and it fizzled. That does not mean they do not have a few gun types in a bunker somewhere.
This is not news.
I'm a network administrator and I've been noting (and every administrator on the planet too, I guess) that at least since april this year, in the days following patch tuesday (I call that "black friday") there is a new batch of exploits, and there are usually no MS exploits (the last month being an exception) until the next black friday.
Let's face it. If MS chooses a specific day to release al its patches of the month, it's logical that blackhats will choose a day that gives their exploits more bang for the buck.
Response time for MS if effectively 30 days (unless it happens to involve their DRM), and everybody knows it. Get used to it.
No, this is not how IE worked until vista.
With earlier IE versions, the user is NOT ASKED, as both the GP post and you say, but the action IS ALLOWED.
The GP poster seems to imply that all these actions that cause the security popups should be rejected, without even informing the user (enforcing a rule saying that toolbars cannot access any part from the system except IE, period).
What you see as funny, I see as an oportunity.
Nintendo will get drivers for the wii chipset, and, being linux under the GPL, it could be an excellent oportunity to get some open source drivers.
Even if they use binary drivers, there will be some sort of stub module that can be used to interface with the binary portion. That driver will probably be useful somewhere else, unless the wii is 100% custom hardware.
Cheap?
You can buy one gigabyte of either CF or SD for USD30, in Argentina (so it's more expensive because it's imported). USD 44 for a gigabyte of flash memory is a ripoff.
Memory sticks were never cheap, and the only reason people buy it is because they are locked into the format.
I think the GP poster means that you can plug it into your IDE chain without translating anything. The interface is one of a IDE disk. I've seen CF to IDE adaptors, they only have 1 or 2 resistors, and the rest is just a straight mechanical adaptor.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or you're just in a bad mood, but I've noted that on all your three posts on this thread you mention the "Top 14 excuses". In the post I'm replying to, that list has no relation whatsoever with the rest of the post, it's just glued there like a sig. If I had mod points, I would have modded your post as "troll" (to any mod reading this, down a bit, not to -1).
Putting that list in all your posts is really counterproductive (if you want to make participate in the discussion I mean, if you're really trolling ignore what I've said).
As for your post, I agree with the others. Never seen the bug you're talking about (minimal CPU usage right now), but FF is a memory hog (hoards memory, but is tolerable). 1.5 also has a few annoying behaviours, like drag and drop crap (if anyone knows how to disable that, tell me) or middle click to paste (already disabled). In fact, I'm impressed that it turned out pretty stable, considering all I've been hearing about 1.5. I did keep 1.0 until a critical update forced me to upgrade, though.
(Using 1.5.0.6 on suse 10)
Would you please explain why gaim-encryption is weak?
OTR might be a better choice for social communications, as explained in the paper, but that does not make gaim-encryption (or PGP, etc) weak. For its intended purpose both PGP and gaim-encryption seem strong.
If I wanted to authenticate and keep a message secret from eavesdroppers, I would have no problems using gaim-encryption. At work, non-repudiation is really not a problem, and if my key was compromised, IM compromise would be my smallest problem (assuming that with that key, my SSH and PGP ones were compromised too).
If you know gaim-encryption is weak, I'd like to hear about it. But it looks to me that it is strong, provided you know what you're getting into.
And my response to your response is that if you do this and treat the IT people bad enough, you get a conspiracy.
It is very good not to give the keys of the kingdom to a single person (or section). But that is no substitute to treating the most important people in the company well (if they can do serious damage as we are all thinking, they are VERY important).
You can use technology to move the role of critical person around, but eventually it rests on someone's (or some group's) shoulder. If you do not trust that someone, you're screwed. You could take the power off IT, but then it might be a manager who betrays you. If you move it to a group, things get harder, but there's a point where that group will betray you if enough of the people in it get frustrated.