Student writes inefficient code, learns how to optimize it using known techniques, it becomes faster. Film at 11.
Don't forget the special add-on modules to come up with a different spelling of your name each visit.
Great! Now all I have to do is compromise your user account, add some aliases to your
-config files and adhoc installed libraries are impossible to link to the application that actually needs it (given the fact that my time is scarce). Nightmare when upgrading, creating new instances or when pulling apart a system (for e.g. performance/HA).
-if an application uses resources, e.g. I/O, too much you want to know about it, point fingers and restrict its usage (and maybe give it its own). Nightmare when you want to find out 'what causes it to grind to a halt during Xmas'.
iotop. A VM only makes this problem harder.
-applications has 'resources' they should not have, because another application needed that 'resources'. Example: Qmail needed compiler and afterwards a cracked PHPMyadmin used that to compile malware.
chroot with linux-vserver enforcement.
Now you're either storing all the users' past passwords. Or maybe some clever hash of those passwords that preserves efficient computation of Levenshtein distance. However, given an oracle that computes Levenshtein distance, one could easily extract the password.
I'm more interested in a Duke Nukem Forever code review. Imagine how horrible it must be.
How dare people chop of the trailing bits of an IPv6 address, thus rendering IPv6 privacy extensions ineffective.
While it is concerning that a U.S.-based lobby has this much power, the real issue is that nobody should be listening to the American Chamber of Commerce. If the EFF started writing EU legislation, we'd be jumping for joy.
Some projects deal with SSH keys and include them for testing purposes: https://github.com/trolldbois/sslsnoop/blob/master/test/id_dsa-1.key
So basically this is a Faux News article arguing against net neutrality.
your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. your idea will not work. here is why it won't work. (one or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) no one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) it is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) it will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) users of email will not put up with it
( ) microsoft will not put up with it
( ) the police will not put up with it
( ) requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) open relays in foreign countries
( ) ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) jurisdictional problems
(x) unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) huge existing software investment in smtp
(x) susceptibility of protocols other than smtp to attack
(x) willingness of users to install os patches received by email
( ) armies of worm riddled broadband-connected windows boxes
( ) eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) extreme profitability of spam
( ) joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) technically illiterate politicians
( ) extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) smtp headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) blacklists suck
( ) whitelists suck
( ) we should be able to talk about viagra without being censored
(x) countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) sending email should be free
(x) why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(x) i don't want the government reading my email
(x) killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
furthermore, this is what i think about you:
( ) sorry dude, but i don't think it would work.
( ) this is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(x) nice try, assh0le! i'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
There are less than 10^9 SSNs. That's a very easy brute force attack.
Why would somebody with 12+ years of C++ experience be doing web site development?
Let's call it what it is. Google is accepting payment from big media, in the form of reduced media licensing costs, to rank big media sites higher. While still claiming to not accept payment for ranking.
* According to a study sponsored by the tabacco industry.