Unlike this case, which is ridiculous, the McDonald's coffee case was actually not. McDonalds routinely served coffee at temperatures that could cause third degree burns in just a few seconds. Read the page you linked.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
A few years back in the UK there was an ISP called Freeserve (now known as Wanadoo). It was a dial-up ISP, and it was free. In the sense that you still paid standard phone charges, but there was no actual charge for an account at Freeserve - not pre paid, not monthly, etc.
How did this work? Well, Freeserve basically went to the telephone companies and made agreements with them to get a share of the profit the telephone company makes by charging you for the telephone call.
What if a model like this could be adopted for the internet? It could provide a decent fair ground.
Say you're Google. You pay the ISP you peer with a fee. Rather than the ISP keeping that fee for itself, adding it to it's funds, and paying it's standard peering charge with the ISPs that ISP peers with when next due, what if the ISP split up the fee, kept a section of it for itself, and the ISP the ISP peered with? (And so on.)
This would be opposed to a specific ISP demanding money from Google for it to be able to serve pages to it's broadband users. In this system, the ISP would get some money, but they would not be the only one doing so, and so they would not be able to get away with charging overly high prrices.
I probably haven't thought this through too well, but I'd like to know if there's anything in it.
I know exactly what you mean and I think exactly the same thing.
I've seen tons of online games like it, and I've seen one, yes, one game where the protocol was documented and very secure. (Documenting the protocol didn't uncover any vulnerability whatsoever).
Point being, don't give the client a say in anything you don't want it to have a say in. If you don't want them to suddenly jump over there, don't give them commands which give them the leaway to do so. Give them commands like "Move forward a bit at normal speed" and "Move back a bit slowly", and rate-limit those commands. And shooting? It should just be one, parameterless command. "Shoot".
The developers of these games get exactly what they deserve.
First of all, don't go with 'flashy' hosts that try to woo you with their whiz-bang web design unless it's one of the big, well-known hosts. By this, I mean look at their website design. Does it look like a template? The sort that involve stock art pictures of people. If so, stay away.
Second, are the prices absurdly low, or are the figures absurdly high for the price? If so, stay away. (I would also imagine that you want to go for neither the lowest or the highest price you can find.)
Third, you probably don't want to go with one-man webhosts, or hosts run by teenagers. If you can find proof that the webhost is neither, that too makes it a better candidate.
Fourth, yes, WHT is a very good community. You should do a search on any host before choosing them. It's usually the negative reviews, not the positive reviews that really matter. There can be any number of positive reviews for a company, but one negative review can tell you everything the positive ones didn't.
Fifth, what does the host claim, datacentre-wise? You might want to look for hosts that host in GNAC or ThePlanet, or claim to, rather than claiming to (or having) have their own datacenter (unless it's one of the very big hosts). Even if the host does have its own datacentre, ask yourself: is it really likely to live up to the former two?
Sixth, yes, do ask people you know. I don't reccomend Google. Search engines use ranking algorithms, and thusly can and are gamed. People aren't so much.
Seventh, I have heard very good things about ASmallOrange.
There's this program available for Windows called FastCache which has been more than handy when my ISP's DNS servers have gone down and so forth. You use it as a nameserver by setting your DNS addresses to localhost, and it caches entries for several days.
It's not something you typically thank every day, but when for whatever reason DNS fails for me, it's a lifesaver.
Does anyone know of equivalents of this on Linux/Mac?
In the UK over the past few years there've been various rights-eroding laws put in place (e.g. warrantless searches and arrests if they suspect you're a terrorist), and then this happened.
What worries me is that the security staff are going to blindly believe the computer's "this is suspicious", causing the person huge inconvenience despite any actual evidence of him being a terrorist on his person. See the link - just because someone matched enough random, minor items on (presumably) some sort of mental checklist in the security staff's head, they put him through huge inconvenience, arrested him, searched his house, took his cellphone's SIM card, took computers from his home, all without a warrant, simply because they had enough things crossed off to be able to mark him as "suspicious" (and thus use the Terrorism Act), despite there being absolutely no proof on his person.
If this gets done, thus moving the mental checklist into the computer, I can only hope there WILL be regular false positives (so that the security staff take it with a pinch of salt and use it as a guideline only), else they might suspect people unduly despite there being no cause for suspicion other than "the computer says so".
I think the best solution would be to examine human psychology as we know it and see what symbols will create the most appropriate 'instinctive' reaction.
For example, does the letter 'X' or the 'Radioactive' symbol evoke a more instinctive sense of forbidding?
I don't know any company (not just VoIP hardware) that open sources their hardware (firmware/driver wise).
It's only necessary to get hardware which supports open standards like SIP or H.323. These are different things, but I consider open standards to be a hundred times more important.
Apparently the only practical method of transport other than walking in the US is by car. Perhaps if there were more public transport in the US, people would have their immune systems tested more (which seems to actually result in less illness.)
Also, what about air conditioning? The US has a lot more air conditioning, and compared to fresh air you'd think it could harbour a lot of illnesses.
It was even more cunning than that. Not only that, the compiler was coded to tell when it was compiling itself, and added the trojan to the compiler it was compiling.
So you compile a compiler with a trojaned compiler that inserts a trojan into the compiler it's compiling so that when you compile login with the compiler you just compiled with the trojaned compiler, login will have the trojan compiled in too.
It's been a while since I checked out BlueFrog, but I seem to recall Blue Security provided a database of MD5 hashes of members' email addresses, to allow spammers to avoid emailing them.
"Previously, all the e-mails were effectively stored on the desktops and there was no central location of the data,"
Perhaps it's just me, but it seems like these companies weren't applying Linux quite the intended way. Linux isn't a magic plaster you can throw over your IT problems, and frankly, I'm sure it does need a little more maintenance than Windows, but it seems like the people that set these systems up didn't put any thought into their infrastructure.
Storing emails on the desktop isn't a problem that Linux creates. Windows seems more akin to something that says "This is the best way to store emails", whereas Linux is more like "Where do you want to store emails? It's up to you. I can't give you any advice." I'm sure these company's Linux-based experiences would have been much better if they did a bit more planning into the structure of the services in the first place.
Those are usually called adventure games, not IF. Although I guess you could say they're a comibation what with the text parser and all. And yes, adventure games are awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
I would imagine that's because corporations get activation-less corporate versions.
Unlike this case, which is ridiculous, the McDonald's coffee case was actually not. McDonalds routinely served coffee at temperatures that could cause third degree burns in just a few seconds. Read the page you linked.
I think this is a good idea, but I really wish more people would put subtitles on their flash videos, the EFF no exception.
Seriously, how hard would it be to spend some 10 minutes adding subtitles?
I do like the idea, though.
Of course it would have; but the problems is that humans can, and will, make mistakes, and anything that is infallible will inevitably go wrong.
There's quite an interesting digest mailing list on risks to the public due to computers and related systems. http://risks.org/
A few years back in the UK there was an ISP called Freeserve (now known as Wanadoo). It was a dial-up ISP, and it was free. In the sense that you still paid standard phone charges, but there was no actual charge for an account at Freeserve - not pre paid, not monthly, etc.
How did this work? Well, Freeserve basically went to the telephone companies and made agreements with them to get a share of the profit the telephone company makes by charging you for the telephone call.
What if a model like this could be adopted for the internet? It could provide a decent fair ground.
Say you're Google. You pay the ISP you peer with a fee. Rather than the ISP keeping that fee for itself, adding it to it's funds, and paying it's standard peering charge with the ISPs that ISP peers with when next due, what if the ISP split up the fee, kept a section of it for itself, and the ISP the ISP peered with? (And so on.)
This would be opposed to a specific ISP demanding money from Google for it to be able to serve pages to it's broadband users. In this system, the ISP would get some money, but they would not be the only one doing so, and so they would not be able to get away with charging overly high prrices.
I probably haven't thought this through too well, but I'd like to know if there's anything in it.
But with Power over Wireless, who's to stop anyone from stealing my electricity?
Guess we'll need WPA2/PoW. Although the advantages might be that more people might care about securing it, once they see their first electricity bill.
Not it if it ends up like ink cartridges, where you pay a lot more for a lot less because you have no alternative, what with vendor lockin and all.
Perhaps I'm just being pessimistic, but I don't see any reason this won't go the way of ink cartridges.
I know exactly what you mean and I think exactly the same thing.
I've seen tons of online games like it, and I've seen one, yes, one game where the protocol was documented and very secure. (Documenting the protocol didn't uncover any vulnerability whatsoever).
Point being, don't give the client a say in anything you don't want it to have a say in. If you don't want them to suddenly jump over there, don't give them commands which give them the leaway to do so. Give them commands like "Move forward a bit at normal speed" and "Move back a bit slowly", and rate-limit those commands. And shooting? It should just be one, parameterless command. "Shoot".
The developers of these games get exactly what they deserve.
First of all, don't go with 'flashy' hosts that try to woo you with their whiz-bang web design unless it's one of the big, well-known hosts. By this, I mean look at their website design. Does it look like a template? The sort that involve stock art pictures of people. If so, stay away.
Second, are the prices absurdly low, or are the figures absurdly high for the price? If so, stay away. (I would also imagine that you want to go for neither the lowest or the highest price you can find.)
Third, you probably don't want to go with one-man webhosts, or hosts run by teenagers. If you can find proof that the webhost is neither, that too makes it a better candidate.
Fourth, yes, WHT is a very good community. You should do a search on any host before choosing them. It's usually the negative reviews, not the positive reviews that really matter. There can be any number of positive reviews for a company, but one negative review can tell you everything the positive ones didn't.
Fifth, what does the host claim, datacentre-wise? You might want to look for hosts that host in GNAC or ThePlanet, or claim to, rather than claiming to (or having) have their own datacenter (unless it's one of the very big hosts). Even if the host does have its own datacentre, ask yourself: is it really likely to live up to the former two?
Sixth, yes, do ask people you know. I don't reccomend Google. Search engines use ranking algorithms, and thusly can and are gamed. People aren't so much.
Seventh, I have heard very good things about ASmallOrange.
Does this remind anyone of Riven?
There's this program available for Windows called FastCache which has been more than handy when my ISP's DNS servers have gone down and so forth. You use it as a nameserver by setting your DNS addresses to localhost, and it caches entries for several days.
It's not something you typically thank every day, but when for whatever reason DNS fails for me, it's a lifesaver.
Does anyone know of equivalents of this on Linux/Mac?
In the UK over the past few years there've been various rights-eroding laws put in place (e.g. warrantless searches and arrests if they suspect you're a terrorist), and then this happened.
What worries me is that the security staff are going to blindly believe the computer's "this is suspicious", causing the person huge inconvenience despite any actual evidence of him being a terrorist on his person. See the link - just because someone matched enough random, minor items on (presumably) some sort of mental checklist in the security staff's head, they put him through huge inconvenience, arrested him, searched his house, took his cellphone's SIM card, took computers from his home, all without a warrant, simply because they had enough things crossed off to be able to mark him as "suspicious" (and thus use the Terrorism Act), despite there being absolutely no proof on his person.
If this gets done, thus moving the mental checklist into the computer, I can only hope there WILL be regular false positives (so that the security staff take it with a pinch of salt and use it as a guideline only), else they might suspect people unduly despite there being no cause for suspicion other than "the computer says so".
What if I accidentially go over capacity -- I don't want it to overflow and fry my motherboard!
I think the best solution would be to examine human psychology as we know it and see what symbols will create the most appropriate 'instinctive' reaction.
For example, does the letter 'X' or the 'Radioactive' symbol evoke a more instinctive sense of forbidding?
I don't know any company (not just VoIP hardware) that open sources their hardware (firmware/driver wise).
It's only necessary to get hardware which supports open standards like SIP or H.323. These are different things, but I consider open standards to be a hundred times more important.
I think you might be right.
Apparently the only practical method of transport other than walking in the US is by car. Perhaps if there were more public transport in the US, people would have their immune systems tested more (which seems to actually result in less illness.)
Also, what about air conditioning? The US has a lot more air conditioning, and compared to fresh air you'd think it could harbour a lot of illnesses.
It was even more cunning than that. Not only that, the compiler was coded to tell when it was compiling itself, and added the trojan to the compiler it was compiling.
So you compile a compiler with a trojaned compiler that inserts a trojan into the compiler it's compiling so that when you compile login with the compiler you just compiled with the trojaned compiler, login will have the trojan compiled in too.
Here, this explains it better than I could.
It's been a while since I checked out BlueFrog, but I seem to recall Blue Security provided a database of MD5 hashes of members' email addresses, to allow spammers to avoid emailing them.
Then just use rainbow tables.
Perhaps it's just me, but it seems like these companies weren't applying Linux quite the intended way. Linux isn't a magic plaster you can throw over your IT problems, and frankly, I'm sure it does need a little more maintenance than Windows, but it seems like the people that set these systems up didn't put any thought into their infrastructure.
Storing emails on the desktop isn't a problem that Linux creates. Windows seems more akin to something that says "This is the best way to store emails", whereas Linux is more like "Where do you want to store emails? It's up to you. I can't give you any advice." I'm sure these company's Linux-based experiences would have been much better if they did a bit more planning into the structure of the services in the first place.
Those are usually called adventure games, not IF. Although I guess you could say they're a comibation what with the text parser and all. And yes, adventure games are awesome.
Myself, I reccomend Return to Ditch Day and The Plant (as well as Adam Cadre's works.)
Anyone else played these?
Myself, I've been looking for an isometric engine, preferably with Python or .NET bindings. Anyone seen one around?
Err. Just about every PHP program I've seen does that. What alternative do you suggest?
I'm not quite sure if there's a difference, but I think with .ip it's already been done -- .arpa.
But of course with DNS it's the other way round, so you actually have 1.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa