Patents were created to help protect the upfront capital investments required for creating physical goods. We came up with a set of rules that protect against utterly absurd misapplications of this temporary monopoly. The justices are trying to apply these baseline protections to an area of investment and innovation that is radically different. If only we could just pass a law saying "this is stupid" and move on....
Speech.is reimplements DNS lookups within the browser itself. When coupled with emerging WebRTC P2P networks we are able to push all processing to the client side, shielding us from legal liability.
What's *really* amazing is that I was able to backport some of the censorship resistant properties of the Namecoin
The www.speech.is website has the full nitty-gritty details. However, remember that this is a developer preview!"
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I had the same thought, smartphones have plenty of physical hardware interfaces and can certainly make due. AFAIK, servers are the only place where we need a lot more entropy than a standard device and where (especially on virtual machines) there is a poverty of physical signals to mix in. Even here, however, you only need to ensure that the initial seed is random, hashing will take care of the rest. FWIW, Ubuntu 14 comes with a nifty random entropy seed protocol called pollinate.
I think the authors are just going out on an a limb to try and find some practical edge to the paper. Everyone's being pushed to do that now, it's a publicity stunt that (apparently) works.
I think CloudFlare and some of the other big CDN's would need to add this as an optional feature before it got big enough to matter. I just don't see Google adopting this.
A Tor developer? Being paranoid? Shocking!
No, I'm sorry, when I say "evidence" what I mean is, and try to follow along here, "evidence". Not anecdotes. Not scary bumping noises in the night. Evidence.
Okay, "When I flew away for an appointment, I installed four alarm systems in my apartment," Appelbaum told the paper after discussing other situations which he said made him feel uneasy. "When I returned, three of them had been turned off. The fourth, however, had registered that somebody was in my flat - although I'm the only one with a key. And some of my effects, whose positions I carefully note, were indeed askew. My computers had been turned on and off."
Who breaks into an apartment, turns off alarms, and politely tries to put everything back in its place? Do you want him to post video of agents too? Just listen to the man.
Oh, and it should be simple to enforce: have the priority queue queued up before their allotted time. You have to be there X minutes before the queue is scheduled to let out or you won't get into the queue. That gives you X minutes to inspect all of the vehicle plates.
However, couldn't this be implemented as a priority queue? When the the priority queue empties, the general queue gets out. People whom are able to break camp early, without waiting for others in their group, do so. If the group *must* leave camp at the same time, they all file into the general queue.
The length of the priority queue will fluctuate, but you could plan for fewer slots later in the day (for example).
ok, so Lambda expressions are cool, but are they critical?
They allow you to distribute a job without doing all of threads and callbacks by yourself. Even if you ignore the electron wall Moore's law is hitting, "cloud" computing is all about doing many small computations simultaneously.
...saying something they had already put on the record. He has a great issue that the public is passionate about but Obama folds every hand he is dealt.
Why doesn't ARIN just charge more per IPv4 address? They could have easily setup rents to try and even out the price being paid by early adopters. Those who really cannot upgrade can continue to do so but those that can will do so more quickly. Give them something they can put into an Excel spreadsheet vs existential benifits to adopting IPv6 at a high financial cost
Great, so 30 years in and we might actually switch over.
Thank god the IETF hasn't bowed to pressure by idiots to impliment NAT in IPv6.
Ugh, stop blaming firewalls as being too restrictive and then saying NAT doesn't have those problems. The "many techniques" you mention of getting around NAT don't work very well and are vastly simpler to impliment using standard firewalls. NAT is a shitty hack and it's not any harder to detect if a proper firewall is blocking a port or a certain address vs a NAT just not fowarding the requests properly. NAT comes broken by default.