Phishing is NOT man in the middle. It's just social engineering to get people to think that D really is A.
So what do you think the man-in-the-middle is? If you're thinking router hijacking, that's just the same thing, only done on a different level. In both cases, you connect to a different computer than you think.
The difference is only that when you fall for a phishing e-mail, you think you are going to ebank.com, while in fact you may be going to e-bank.com, while if someone hijacks a router between you and ebank.com, your computer thinks that it's talking to 12.168.17.62 while in fact it may be talking to 208.50.13.154.
As you can probably see, the difference is minute and irrelevant. In both cases you are talking with an intermediary.
Yes, it actually seems so. It took me a couple of minutes to realize it however -- the site's design immediately triggered my evil-domain-name-buyer-and-adware-mongler filter, probably because of the marketing-like image on top and the long columnized list of links. It took me quite a while to get past that, so that I could what the site was actually for.
I, for one, would seriously recommend a redesign of the site.
It is believed that the Chinese government is working to hinder capitalism and free speech.
RMS is believed to be working to hinder proprietary software.
Experts propose a theory that Christian priests may preach Christianity.
Even more controversially, Buddhist monks are believed to attempt to reach Nirvana.
Last, but not least, analysts predict that Microsoft will continue releasing Windows-based operating system, rather than switching to a Linux-based system.
Indeed you are right. I had just forgotten about that part. The home address is used "normally", but once a connection to another node is established, there is some kind of protocol (again, I haven't read the RFC in any detail) that can be used to renegotiate that connection so that it doesn't need to go through the HA.
I hope this is real and not vapor-ware. I've been waiting for instant start for 20 years.
Have you ever tried Linux SWSUSP? It's a variation on the hard drive hibernation theme, which writes anonymous memory to the swap and then shuts down. When booting up again, it only takes a few seconds from the point where the kernel starts booting until your system is up and running again, just where you left it.
The only real downside is that the computer still needs to go through the BIOS sequence before being able to boot the kernel, but there's not much to do about that. I'd be very excited about trying it with LinuxBIOS, though. It's a pity my mobo isn't supported.
Not that I ever actually turn off my computer, but it's fun to play around with.:)
That shouldn't be very surprising, though. Admittedly, I'm no material physicist, but AFAIK metals cannot be transparent, since the conduction band simply responds to too many EM frequencies. Conversely, if something is transparent, then it cannot be a metal.
I would think that some compound containing aluminium is as close to transparent aluminium that we'll ever get.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. You can go to the store and buy Doom 3, and it will run on Linux.
As for video drivers, I'll gladly admit that the ATI drivers are seriously lacking, but only ATI can fix that (by either writing good drivers or by at least letting someone know how to do it). There's nothing wrong with the nVidia drivers, though (except for the fact that they're still proprietary, but they work very well).
Hey, the 90s called; they said something about wanting their excuses back.
In all seriousness, it's true that the majority of games don't run on Linux, but they are actually growing fewer by the month. Many of the newest games ship with native Linux versions. I'm not a gamer myself, so I'm not very knowledgeable, but I know that at least Doom 3 runs on Linux. Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Unreal Tournament 2003 (or was it 2004?) and Neverwinter Nights can't really be called "new" anymore, I guess, but they did support Linux more or less from the start. I don't really know what "new" games there are, so I can't speak for the rest of the really new ones.
However, as I said, while the Windows-only games are certainly dominant, they are just as certainly growing fewer.
Re:15 Reasons to boycott IMDb
on
IMDb Turns 15
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's absolutely free to use. A site of that size can't live off of goodwill, sunshine, and gumdrops. I'll take a bit of annoyance to have it retain the useful information.
Really? Wikipedia seems to be doing pretty well without being for profit or having banner ads, even though I'd say that it's probably a lot larger than IMDb is.
I don't really think that point is a very good one. Not very many people are able to remember an address like "192.168.1.25" either, until they learn that 192.168.0.0/16 is the prefix for private addresses and get that into their muscle memory. Then they can just remember the "1.25" part.
Likewise, my 6to4 addresses were also hard to remember before I learned all the individual parts and put the more static parts in muscle memory: 2002 for 6to4, 52b6:8514 for my public IPv4 address, 100 for my subnet, and then only the host-local address left, such as 2002:52b6:8514:100::1.
Sure, it's easier to remember IPv4 addresses, but now that I'm using a double-stack network, I can honestly say that it's not that much harder to remember IPv6 addresses. And getting true end-to-end addressability (whereas I use NAT for IPv4) makes it so worth it.
why does it have all those funny characters? couldn't they increase the size by simply making the addresses longer?
Indeed, that is what they have done. They've just replaced dots with colons and decimal encoding with hexadecimal encoding. The only other trick is that you can replace a group of zeroes with a double colon.
The localhost address in IPv6 is 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 (or 0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0001 if you're anal), but since it's almost all zeroes, you can write::1 instead. In the same way, I can replace the address for one of my hosts, 2002:52b6:8514:0100:0000:0000:0000:0001 with just 2002:52b6:8514:100::1. It's just so that you don't have to type out all the zeroes.
I can't really figure out why they replaced dots with colons, though. I can only guess that it is so that the address is easily discernable from an IPv4 address.
how does it work? you tell me, details are not easy to find. ots of talk, few working implementations (if I'm wrong, please tell me, I'm genuinely very interested).
You are correct that there aren't exactly very many working implementations of it (mainly because it's so new), but I believe that USAGI is working on one. However, there are lots of details. I think that it's not considered fully finalized quite yet, but it's finalized enough to have reached the status of RFC: RFC 3775.
I haven't read the RFC myself though, but here's my impresson on how it works: The device attempts to connect to whatever network is available at its location (be it a WiFi hotspot or 3G cell phone connection or anything) and does all the normal IPv6 negotiation stuff so that it gets at least a link-local address and a globally routable unicast address. Using that unicast address, it contacts the Home Agent (HA) to get a "Home Address". In other words, the device will have at least two globally routable unicast addresses. The normal source address selection algorithm has provisions that say that the Home Address should always be preferred (see RFC 3484). IPv6 mobility then uses an IPSec tunnel between the device and the HA. When you leave the current network or just want to use another network, the tunnel is renegotiated with the HA.
But seriously, if IPv6 was so good, it would not require so much pushing. If the IPv4 exhaustion was real and imminent, it would not rquire so much pushing.
Are you kidding? If one standard is in use and it works "good enough", people (other than those who explicitly want to try, like early adopters or other tech freaks) will keep from switching just because it takes too much effort (that is, more effort than none). The same thing goes for a great many other things, such as 3G cell phones, USB keyboards or VoIP.
Not until IPv4 really does not work anymore will average people start looking towards IPv6.
Sure, the Bird Flu is horrible and all, but when I want news on it, I watch the local TV news or read the newspaper. It might be "stuff that matters, but how is it "news for nerds"?
Not that I want to debunk those results or anything, but saying that two similar substances of the same kind have the same effect would also imply that ethanol and methanol would have roughly the same effect. I doubt there is anyone on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference, though.
X is carrying the food. (Where X is the food carrier.)
Note this is why passive voice is disfavored; it is often unnecessarily ambiguous.
But maybe that's the point? Saying that "X is carrying the food" places too much focus on the fact that it is X, and not Y, that is carrying the food, when the fact that you want to communicate is that the food is being carried.
Compare these two sentences: "X tested Y for Z" and "Y was tested for Z". Can you reasonably tell me that the second sentence will not communicate the real meaning more efficiently?
How do you take back something you never owned in the first place?
Ever heard of Unix talk or IRC? Admittedly, IRC is kind of a different thing, but Unix talk can actually be said to be superior to today's popular IM networks, in the sense that it is completely decentralized (and yes, it works across completely unrelated networks). And it existed at least 10 years before anyone ever heard of ICQ. It only really lacks presence notification to make it a fully fledged IM protocol (oh yeah, and graphical smilies... I forgot for a second that they're as crucial as breathing).
Let's get one problem that I caused out of the way. I typo'ed [...]
Thanks for attempting to clarify, but I already realized that was a typo. My problem was in connecting the "And" to two sentences. Anyway:
In other words, there's even more compelling evidence.
Now, I don't mean to sound disrespectful or anything, but finding "even more compelling evidence" shouldn't be very hard, since the SciAm article provided no evidence at all that we risk invoking any life-threatening climate change. All it concluded was that we are causing weather changes, and as I said, causing weather changes doesn't exactly sound terrifying in and by itself. As you say in part, it does destroy the denial of "people who ignore human contributions to climate change". However, the fact that we affect the climate is by itself not enough to conclude that will go through an extinctual climate change.
"You" is used in the sense of the more formal "one"
I see; sorry for assuming worse of you. However, you keep referring to an otherwise unknown set of companies as the "pollution industry". Again, let me assure you that there are no entities whose primary focus is to produce pollution, as that term otherwise seems to imply. I believe the correct term would be the "polluting industry". Anyhow, this is an irrelevant point, so I'll leave it at that. Use whatever term you feel most comfortable with.
But even so, if you personally are believing the pollution industry's lies, you don't have an excuse now that we see such obvious evidence.
Again, I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything, but I have yet to see any such evidence (because, again, the SciAm article only offers evidence of human-induced climate changes -- not on any consequences of these). I have also to see something which I am able to disprove as a "lie" (though, admittedly, I haven't been looking very far).
Or that it's OK to search for more convenient answers to our current danger than "cut down Greenhouse pollution".
Indeed, this is a very important point. I believe it is both OK and encourageable to do so, because many of the processes by which we produce potential greenhouse gases are very central to human convenience and quality of life. Therefore, unless there truly is compelling evidence (which I have yet to see) that we suffer a considerable risk of extinctual climate change unless we cut down on our greenhouse gas production, there is plenty of reason to not do so.
So what if Earth is "Gaia", a unified complex organism in which humans are one link in an interconnected chain?
So what? Well, if it truly is, then our atmospheric composition will be regulated regardlessly of whether we choose to do so or not, which is important, because if we don't have to, we shouldn't (according to the point I made above). It is also important to note that the Gaia theory does not concern itself with whether different organisms are "linked" or "interconnected" -- it points out that life, taken as a whole (regardlessly of any internal interconnection), makes a self-regulating system which keeps entropy in general at a habitable level.
What the SciAm article demonstrates is that human activity causes weather changes. The mechanics of human Greenhouse pollution contributions to climate change has also been documented. So we have compelling evidence that humans cause enough climate change to matter, despite the denials of people saying "humans are too puny to damage the climate".
Indeed. I never denied that -- rather, I agreed (as an aside: if you didn't notice that, maybe you'll want to read my post again). What I wondered was were you wanted to arrive with that conclusion. The fact that "human activity causes weather changes" doesn't really sound very sinister in and by itself.
And even more compelling evidence that reducing human Greenhouse pollution reduces the chances that the climate will change to on in which we cannot survive.
After several attempts, I still can't really parse this sentence (since I'm not sure what the unary "and" is supposed to give continuation to). Are you actually saying that the SciAm article gives this "evidence"? If so, I'd really like for you to point that evidence out for me. I read the entire article (twice), and didn't see any such evidence claimed therein.
There's really no excuse anymore for believing the pollution industry's lies, unless perhaps you're on their payroll.
Now, now, it seems as though there is some greenhouse effect inside your head -- let's cool down a degree or two and have a civilized discussion, shall we? We both know that there is no such thing as an industry whose main focus lies on producing pollution, and stooping down to ad hominem arguments certainly won't get any of us anywhere. If you really want that postulate to have any bearing, how about providing at least one of these "lies", and disprove it?
Furtheron, you didn't ever touch upon any of the counter-points I brought up: Solar cycles, geoorbital cycles, the geomagnetical cycle or the Gaia theory. Shall I consider those arguments as standing?
But enough of dignifying your industry FUD propaganda with exposure. How about you just explain how the human workweek doesn't change the weather, in light of that Scientific American article to which I linked?
Indeed, it does seem from the article (repeated link for those that don't want to look up the original post) that the human workweek does alter the weather. However, I'm not sure what conclusions you are trying to get from this.
Are you trying to deduce the greenhouse effect from that article? If so, I'd really like to hear your arguments. In fact, the only conclusions one can make from the article is that the mean temperature is a tenth of a degree or so higher during the weekdays (and, mind you, only measurable at 35% of the weather stations, while some others experienced the opposite effect). A lot of other things were not measured -- for example, how this would correlate to the mean temperature if no humans were living in the affected areas. It may more than well be that the temperature is only fluctuating around the same mean temperature that would otherwise have been. It may also be that the cloud changes of which they speak may be "channeling" the heat to the mentioned coastal areas that experienced the opposite effect (since the article doesn't mention the magnitude or frequency of the opposite effect, it's hard to tell). Think about it -- it's a very plausible scenario that the mentioned cloud effects would act as energy channels to the periphery of the continent. It's only made more plausible by the fact that the warming effect happened in the inner parts of the continent, according to the picture.
Also, as for the greenhouse effect, I'm sure that you know that there are a multitude of alternative explanations to the current rise in global temperature. Just to mention a few, it is well known that we are going through a period of both heightened solar activity and a cycle in the Earth's rotational pattern that causes temperature elevations. It is also widely accepted that we are in the beginning of a polarity switch in the Earth's magnetic field. Surely, it is not impossible that the weakening of the field allows for additional energy income from the solar wind? I'm not trying to completely deny that we humans are doing our fair share by releasing greenhouse gases, but I'm questioning whether it's really such a doomsday scenario as some people try to paint.
As another aside, ever heard of the Gaia theory and the Daisyworld simulations? In particular, it is hypothesized that life acts as a self-regulating system to keep parameters such as ocean salinity, atmosphere composition and surface temperature at somewhat constant values. Of course, some latency in the system is to be expected (50-100 years isn't very much, after all), but considering how life showed no problem in bringing the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from >>20% to less than 0.1% (as it is today) shows that there is no quantitative controversy to life being more than well up to the task of regulating our small disturbances.
While internet spending was only $14 million last year it is growing at a rate of 30 fold over four years poising it to overtake conventional media spending.
This just in: Scientists report that there is no detectable change in the sun's radiation, hence we will truly be able to live on earth forever. Another report notices that since cell phones are getting half as small every two years, in the year 2015, they will be so small that we will be required to press the buttons using a magnifying glass and a needle.
Lesson: When extrapolating, you may want to look beyond the first function you can think of. It's not very strange that a new-found medium of advertising gets exploited very quickly, only to stop growing as quickly once the advertisers realize that there is nothing more to be gained from it.
Speaking of which, shouldn't it be possible to build nanotubes out of silicon instead of carbon? I'm no nanotechnician, so I don't know if it would have any technical advantages or disadvantages, but I'm pretty sure that it's easier to get large amounts of silicon for production.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is only that when you fall for a phishing e-mail, you think you are going to ebank.com, while in fact you may be going to e-bank.com, while if someone hijacks a router between you and ebank.com, your computer thinks that it's talking to 12.168.17.62 while in fact it may be talking to 208.50.13.154.
As you can probably see, the difference is minute and irrelevant. In both cases you are talking with an intermediary.
I, for one, would seriously recommend a redesign of the site.
It is believed that the Chinese government is working to hinder capitalism and free speech.
RMS is believed to be working to hinder proprietary software.
Experts propose a theory that Christian priests may preach Christianity.
Even more controversially, Buddhist monks are believed to attempt to reach Nirvana.
Last, but not least, analysts predict that Microsoft will continue releasing Windows-based operating system, rather than switching to a Linux-based system.
I believe you meant to say "SSHhhh".
Since you mentioned Wikipedia yourself in the title of your post, why not take the step further?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Cunningham.
Indeed you are right. I had just forgotten about that part. The home address is used "normally", but once a connection to another node is established, there is some kind of protocol (again, I haven't read the RFC in any detail) that can be used to renegotiate that connection so that it doesn't need to go through the HA.
The only real downside is that the computer still needs to go through the BIOS sequence before being able to boot the kernel, but there's not much to do about that. I'd be very excited about trying it with LinuxBIOS, though. It's a pity my mobo isn't supported.
Not that I ever actually turn off my computer, but it's fun to play around with. :)
I would think that some compound containing aluminium is as close to transparent aluminium that we'll ever get.
As for video drivers, I'll gladly admit that the ATI drivers are seriously lacking, but only ATI can fix that (by either writing good drivers or by at least letting someone know how to do it). There's nothing wrong with the nVidia drivers, though (except for the fact that they're still proprietary, but they work very well).
In all seriousness, it's true that the majority of games don't run on Linux, but they are actually growing fewer by the month. Many of the newest games ship with native Linux versions. I'm not a gamer myself, so I'm not very knowledgeable, but I know that at least Doom 3 runs on Linux. Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Unreal Tournament 2003 (or was it 2004?) and Neverwinter Nights can't really be called "new" anymore, I guess, but they did support Linux more or less from the start. I don't really know what "new" games there are, so I can't speak for the rest of the really new ones.
However, as I said, while the Windows-only games are certainly dominant, they are just as certainly growing fewer.
Likewise, my 6to4 addresses were also hard to remember before I learned all the individual parts and put the more static parts in muscle memory: 2002 for 6to4, 52b6:8514 for my public IPv4 address, 100 for my subnet, and then only the host-local address left, such as 2002:52b6:8514:100::1.
Sure, it's easier to remember IPv4 addresses, but now that I'm using a double-stack network, I can honestly say that it's not that much harder to remember IPv6 addresses. And getting true end-to-end addressability (whereas I use NAT for IPv4) makes it so worth it.
The localhost address in IPv6 is 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 (or 0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0001 if you're anal), but since it's almost all zeroes, you can write ::1 instead. In the same way, I can replace the address for one of my hosts, 2002:52b6:8514:0100:0000:0000:0000:0001 with just 2002:52b6:8514:100::1. It's just so that you don't have to type out all the zeroes.
I can't really figure out why they replaced dots with colons, though. I can only guess that it is so that the address is easily discernable from an IPv4 address.
I haven't read the RFC myself though, but here's my impresson on how it works: The device attempts to connect to whatever network is available at its location (be it a WiFi hotspot or 3G cell phone connection or anything) and does all the normal IPv6 negotiation stuff so that it gets at least a link-local address and a globally routable unicast address. Using that unicast address, it contacts the Home Agent (HA) to get a "Home Address". In other words, the device will have at least two globally routable unicast addresses. The normal source address selection algorithm has provisions that say that the Home Address should always be preferred (see RFC 3484). IPv6 mobility then uses an IPSec tunnel between the device and the HA. When you leave the current network or just want to use another network, the tunnel is renegotiated with the HA.
Not until IPv4 really does not work anymore will average people start looking towards IPv6.
Sure, the Bird Flu is horrible and all, but when I want news on it, I watch the local TV news or read the newspaper. It might be "stuff that matters, but how is it "news for nerds"?
Not that I want to debunk those results or anything, but saying that two similar substances of the same kind have the same effect would also imply that ethanol and methanol would have roughly the same effect. I doubt there is anyone on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference, though.
Compare these two sentences: "X tested Y for Z" and "Y was tested for Z". Can you reasonably tell me that the second sentence will not communicate the real meaning more efficiently?
Furtheron, you didn't ever touch upon any of the counter-points I brought up: Solar cycles, geoorbital cycles, the geomagnetical cycle or the Gaia theory. Shall I consider those arguments as standing?
Are you trying to deduce the greenhouse effect from that article? If so, I'd really like to hear your arguments. In fact, the only conclusions one can make from the article is that the mean temperature is a tenth of a degree or so higher during the weekdays (and, mind you, only measurable at 35% of the weather stations, while some others experienced the opposite effect). A lot of other things were not measured -- for example, how this would correlate to the mean temperature if no humans were living in the affected areas. It may more than well be that the temperature is only fluctuating around the same mean temperature that would otherwise have been. It may also be that the cloud changes of which they speak may be "channeling" the heat to the mentioned coastal areas that experienced the opposite effect (since the article doesn't mention the magnitude or frequency of the opposite effect, it's hard to tell). Think about it -- it's a very plausible scenario that the mentioned cloud effects would act as energy channels to the periphery of the continent. It's only made more plausible by the fact that the warming effect happened in the inner parts of the continent, according to the picture.
Also, as for the greenhouse effect, I'm sure that you know that there are a multitude of alternative explanations to the current rise in global temperature. Just to mention a few, it is well known that we are going through a period of both heightened solar activity and a cycle in the Earth's rotational pattern that causes temperature elevations. It is also widely accepted that we are in the beginning of a polarity switch in the Earth's magnetic field. Surely, it is not impossible that the weakening of the field allows for additional energy income from the solar wind? I'm not trying to completely deny that we humans are doing our fair share by releasing greenhouse gases, but I'm questioning whether it's really such a doomsday scenario as some people try to paint.
As another aside, ever heard of the Gaia theory and the Daisyworld simulations? In particular, it is hypothesized that life acts as a self-regulating system to keep parameters such as ocean salinity, atmosphere composition and surface temperature at somewhat constant values. Of course, some latency in the system is to be expected (50-100 years isn't very much, after all), but considering how life showed no problem in bringing the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from >>20% to less than 0.1% (as it is today) shows that there is no quantitative controversy to life being more than well up to the task of regulating our small disturbances.
Lesson: When extrapolating, you may want to look beyond the first function you can think of. It's not very strange that a new-found medium of advertising gets exploited very quickly, only to stop growing as quickly once the advertisers realize that there is nothing more to be gained from it.
Speaking of which, shouldn't it be possible to build nanotubes out of silicon instead of carbon? I'm no nanotechnician, so I don't know if it would have any technical advantages or disadvantages, but I'm pretty sure that it's easier to get large amounts of silicon for production.