This would work at first, just like it worked with phones. The heaviest users get to pay most towards building the infrastructure.
But once there's enough infrastructure in place, the ISPs will find they have spare capacity, and won't need all their income to build more. Then one of two things could happen:
Prices go down, or ISPs drop the pay-per-byte model.
ISPs make huge profits and rip off the customer.
Now look at the precedent of phones, and guess which is the most likely.
So, do you want intervention now, or after you have been ripped off?
You're talking about paying more to get a faster connection. The proposal is to give you a fast connection, and then artificially throttle when you connect to certain web sites, as a way of extorting money from those sites.
The problem in this area is that the whole Javascript/AJAX technology is such a ghastly mess: partly due to the web just not being designed to work that way, and partly due to the need to work around the various "features" in various browsers.
The effect of this is that, if AJAX could only be used by people who understood all the issues of the underlying implementation, then it would hardly get used at all. Toolkits like this will allow 100% of developers to use 90% of the technology, instead of 5% of developers using 100% of the technology.
No, the reason that it's called "spooky" is that there isn't a delay due to the speed of light limit. This is possible because no information is transferred.
Most people are aware that museums have nude art sections.
Is that really how it works in the US? How bizarre! Here is Europe, museums contain all sorts of art, mixed together. I've never heard of anyone here wanting to avoid seeing the nudes.
How did this get moderated "funny"? It's serious. Surely this law would have to ban nudes in art. The next step would then be to remove them from public display in museums.
it's simply the way Multicast DNS works
So Multicast DNS breaks regular DNS. Still smells like a bug to me. The original post said "at least, prior to 10.3.4", which sounds to me like Apple discovered it was broken, and fixed it.
Unfortunately, most Microsoft-centric so-called "consultants" and "systems engineers" (certified or no) have absolutely no knowledge of anything outside their limited purview, and don't care.
They don't need to: they're making a good living without caring about Apple. If you wanted Apple expertise, you should have paid extra for it. Neither knowing nor caring about Apple does not make you an "arrogant asshat".
Working code is more important, as are defacto standards.
Good point. I'll remember it the next time anyone complains about Microsoft's implementation of LDAP or CSS or Kerberos or whatever being broken.
Your description of the problem makes it sound like Apple were treating the.local domain differently from any other domain name. Unless that behaviour is mandated by the DNS RFCs, it's just a bug in OSX.
Not knowing about bugs in OSX might be ignorance, but it's surely not arrogance.
There are a number of sources of free domain names already: the first example that came up when I googled was
this one, but there are others.
There are also plenty of commercial domain registrars that let you edit your NS records as much as you like. I use
this one but I'm sure google will find you some others.
Then you'll need a free secondary DNS service. Guess what? They exist too.
If there's no operating system installed, you can't just plug it in, turn it on and use it. So it's just computer parts. Yet this is exactly the thing that they're supposed to be stopping people from selling.
But surely the reason that people call for "the government to do something" is not that they want to be protected against porn themselves, but that they want laws put in place to force their own views on everyone else. It's not "I don't want to see this", it's "nobody should be allowed to see this, even if they want to".
Blair has signed an extradition treaty with the US that removes the need for the US to show "probable cause" before a suspect is extradited. So any British citizen can be arbitrarily seized and taken to the US for trial, at the whim of the US authorities, without them having to give any reason.
The treaty is supposed to be bilateral, so that we could seize their citizens on the same terms. But the US have not ratified their part of it, so it is being enforced entirely one-sidedly. See, for example,
this story
Re:Hmm HDTV Still Cripled...
on
A Look at IPTV
·
· Score: 1
No, it's a great idea. I'm looking forward to getting all this extra ADSL bandwith from my telco, so that I can use it for downloading torrents of TV shows instead of having to pay for cable TV.
If it ever becomes successful, that innovation won't last long.
What Google started, their innovative "page ranking" algorithm was widely hyped. The effect was that web sites started to abuse the system by various means to increase their ranking. The only way that Google could fight against this was to change their algorithm in all sorts of ways to downgrade the cheating sites. Of course Google must keep these changes secret, to prevent people from finding ways to exploit them. I bet if you look at what Google is doing now, the original "page ranking" idea is only a small part of the code.
If Accoona becomes popular, the same will surely happen to them.
I don't know about New Yaok, but I've met lots of people from Thailand who have come to work in London. It may be stinky but it's much easier to make a living there, even though things are more expensive.
No, I can't think of a way to commit cardless chip and pin fraud. If ever anyone does, they will make a lot of money very quickly, because no-one will believe what is happening, because the system is supposed to be perfect.
But that's not my point. The merchant's liability is less now, not more, because so long at they use the new system, the bank will take the liability instead. But the customer's liability is also more, because they are responsible for keeping the pin secret, which is impossible because they must reveal the pin every time they use it. If someone watches me enter my pin and then steals the card, the bank will certainly "investigate", but then they will surely say "you must have been careless with your pin: you have broken the terms and conditions that say you must not reveal it to anyone". So I am out of luck.
If the bank really intend to refund my money after an incident like this, what's the point of their new "terms and conditions", which explicitly tell me that they won't?
If I were (insert the name of your least favourite enemy here, e.g. Osama Bin Laden), with a budget of several millions with which to defeat the evil west, I would put just some of this money into getting one of those things apart and puzzling out its secrets. I'm sure there are a a few baddies who know how to use an electron microprobe.
Once the system is broken, all the bank cards in the UK will become untrustworthy overnight. No-one will be able to pay for anything with them, or to get any more cash out of the bank. I wonder what effect the resulting loss of confidence would have on the banking system?
but you're protected from fraud by the merchant and the card scheme anyway
The whole point of chip-and-pin is to protect the banks and the merchants from having to pay out in case of fraud. It transfers the risk of fraud from the retailer to the customer. Have a look at the "amended terms and conditions" that came with your new card.
Basically, if someone got away with this sort of fraud, the bank would just deny it. They would say that you must have revealed your PIN to someone. As there is no longer any signature, you can no longer prove that a forgery has occurred. So you take the loss, instead of the bank or the retailer.
I shop regularly at Sainsbury's, and they let me put my card in the reader myself. There's a slot for it just above the keypad in the PIN terminal that they hand to you.
The main reason that the cashier usually takes the card is simply that people usually hand it over without being asked, because that is what they are used to doing.
There's another reason too: the point-of-sale software is so badly written that if I insert the card too soon, the whole till hangs until I remove it and re-insert it.
The beauty of the new system in the UK is that is is foolproof.
Back in the bad old days, if someone stole your card and used it, you would repudiate the transactions (pointing out the forged signature if necessary). The bank would then repay your money and reclaim it from the retailer. Of course the banks and retailers did not like this fraud.
Now, if someone discovers your PIN (shoulder surfing?) and then steals your card, the bank will simply say "the system is foolproof, so it is all your fault". You lose the money.
The banks have reported that losses by fraud are much reduced by this system. If would be interesting to see how much more money their customers are losing through this sort of thing, that previously they could have recovered. But of course the banks are not interested in collecting this sort of information.
Stuff intended to be bought for commercial use is always more expensive to buy. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's any more expensive to manufacture.
At least one computer needs to be on all the time.
They need to nominate one of the computers as the "bittorent machine" and do all their filesharing on that. Then the others can be turned off when they are not in use.
Slashdot Mirror
But you still have to compile these with GNU gcc. So I suppose Stallman would want us to call that "GNU/Busybox/Linux".
But once there's enough infrastructure in place, the ISPs will find they have spare capacity, and won't need all their income to build more. Then one of two things could happen:
- Prices go down, or ISPs drop the pay-per-byte model.
- ISPs make huge profits and rip off the customer.
Now look at the precedent of phones, and guess which is the most likely.So, do you want intervention now, or after you have been ripped off?
You're talking about paying more to get a faster connection. The proposal is to give you a fast connection, and then artificially throttle when you connect to certain web sites, as a way of extorting money from those sites.
The effect of this is that, if AJAX could only be used by people who understood all the issues of the underlying implementation, then it would hardly get used at all. Toolkits like this will allow 100% of developers to use 90% of the technology, instead of 5% of developers using 100% of the technology.
It's not "beta" like this half-baked "me-too" from google, and it's open-source.Also commercial support is available it you want to pay for it.
No, the reason that it's called "spooky" is that there isn't a delay due to the speed of light limit. This is possible because no information is transferred.
That's the beauty of Java. Write once, doesn't run anywhere.
Is that really how it works in the US? How bizarre! Here is Europe, museums contain all sorts of art, mixed together. I've never heard of anyone here wanting to avoid seeing the nudes.
How did this get moderated "funny"? It's serious. Surely this law would have to ban nudes in art. The next step would then be to remove them from public display in museums.
Again? I must try harder.
it's simply the way Multicast DNS works
So Multicast DNS breaks regular DNS. Still smells like a bug to me. The original post said "at least, prior to 10.3.4", which sounds to me like Apple discovered it was broken, and fixed it.
Unfortunately, most Microsoft-centric so-called "consultants" and "systems engineers" (certified or no) have absolutely no knowledge of anything outside their limited purview, and don't care.
They don't need to: they're making a good living without caring about Apple. If you wanted Apple expertise, you should have paid extra for it. Neither knowing nor caring about Apple does not make you an "arrogant asshat".
Working code is more important, as are defacto standards.
Good point. I'll remember it the next time anyone complains about Microsoft's implementation of LDAP or CSS or Kerberos or whatever being broken.
Your description of the problem makes it sound like Apple were treating the .local domain differently from any other domain name. Unless that behaviour is mandated by the DNS RFCs, it's just a bug in OSX.
Not knowing about bugs in OSX might be ignorance, but it's surely not arrogance.
There are also plenty of commercial domain registrars that let you edit your NS records as much as you like. I use this one but I'm sure google will find you some others.
Then you'll need a free secondary DNS service. Guess what? They exist too.
If there's no operating system installed, you can't just plug it in, turn it on and use it. So it's just computer parts. Yet this is exactly the thing that they're supposed to be stopping people from selling.
But surely the reason that people call for "the government to do something" is not that they want to be protected against porn themselves, but that they want laws put in place to force their own views on everyone else. It's not "I don't want to see this", it's "nobody should be allowed to see this, even if they want to".
Blair has signed an extradition treaty with the US that removes the need for the US to show "probable cause" before a suspect is extradited. So any British citizen can be arbitrarily seized and taken to the US for trial, at the whim of the US authorities, without them having to give any reason.
The treaty is supposed to be bilateral, so that we could seize their citizens on the same terms. But the US have not ratified their part of it, so it is being enforced entirely one-sidedly. See, for example, this story
No, it's a great idea. I'm looking forward to getting all this extra ADSL bandwith from my telco, so that I can use it for downloading torrents of TV shows instead of having to pay for cable TV.
What Google started, their innovative "page ranking" algorithm was widely hyped. The effect was that web sites started to abuse the system by various means to increase their ranking. The only way that Google could fight against this was to change their algorithm in all sorts of ways to downgrade the cheating sites. Of course Google must keep these changes secret, to prevent people from finding ways to exploit them. I bet if you look at what Google is doing now, the original "page ranking" idea is only a small part of the code.
If Accoona becomes popular, the same will surely happen to them.
The weather is better too: not so hot.
But that's not my point. The merchant's liability is less now, not more, because so long at they use the new system, the bank will take the liability instead. But the customer's liability is also more, because they are responsible for keeping the pin secret, which is impossible because they must reveal the pin every time they use it. If someone watches me enter my pin and then steals the card, the bank will certainly "investigate", but then they will surely say "you must have been careless with your pin: you have broken the terms and conditions that say you must not reveal it to anyone". So I am out of luck.
If the bank really intend to refund my money after an incident like this, what's the point of their new "terms and conditions", which explicitly tell me that they won't?
Once the system is broken, all the bank cards in the UK will become untrustworthy overnight. No-one will be able to pay for anything with them, or to get any more cash out of the bank. I wonder what effect the resulting loss of confidence would have on the banking system?
The whole point of chip-and-pin is to protect the banks and the merchants from having to pay out in case of fraud. It transfers the risk of fraud from the retailer to the customer. Have a look at the "amended terms and conditions" that came with your new card.
Basically, if someone got away with this sort of fraud, the bank would just deny it. They would say that you must have revealed your PIN to someone. As there is no longer any signature, you can no longer prove that a forgery has occurred. So you take the loss, instead of the bank or the retailer.
The main reason that the cashier usually takes the card is simply that people usually hand it over without being asked, because that is what they are used to doing.
There's another reason too: the point-of-sale software is so badly written that if I insert the card too soon, the whole till hangs until I remove it and re-insert it.
Back in the bad old days, if someone stole your card and used it, you would repudiate the transactions (pointing out the forged signature if necessary). The bank would then repay your money and reclaim it from the retailer. Of course the banks and retailers did not like this fraud.
Now, if someone discovers your PIN (shoulder surfing?) and then steals your card, the bank will simply say "the system is foolproof, so it is all your fault". You lose the money.
The banks have reported that losses by fraud are much reduced by this system. If would be interesting to see how much more money their customers are losing through this sort of thing, that previously they could have recovered. But of course the banks are not interested in collecting this sort of information.
Stuff intended to be bought for commercial use is always more expensive to buy. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's any more expensive to manufacture.
They need to nominate one of the computers as the "bittorent machine" and do all their filesharing on that. Then the others can be turned off when they are not in use.