When I click on "unreasonable searches and seizures," I get this... excellent... explanation:
This part of the Constitution is supposed to guarantee that 5-0 can’t fuck with you (unless they have “probable cause”)
But — the Conservatives found a way around this by allowing a “stop and frisk” aka “Terry stop” if cops have “reasonable suspicion” (this is why they are still allowed to fuck with you) (see Terry v. Ohio)
In an automobile, cops are often held to the “plain view” standard, although the Roberts court has recently increased their ability to fuck with you (see Beacoats v. Georgia)
Nowadays, keeping “your glove compartment locked” is not enough to protect you, as it was in the Jay-Z/Clinton era of liberal jurisprudence in criminal procedure.
While this is a wonderful text and an unimpeachable use of the technology, I can't avoid reflecting that certain initial choices of brand identification may present serious practical concerns in a prospective attempt to pivot and expand.
It would be more excellent if it were factually correct. Becoats (note spelling, and no relation) v. The State is a Georgia State Supreme Court decision about search dogs that has nothing to do with the Roberts court, which has been mixed to liberal on 4th Amendment issues.
The rule about locking your glove compartment isn't because the police have less rights to search a locked glove box than an unlocked one; it's because police lie that a search was consensual when challenged, and a broken lock makes that awkward.
I've lived in San Francisco for 20 years. You might be interested in knowing where your General Tso's will end up:
When work crews pulled open a broken BART escalator at San Francisco's Civic Center Station last month, they found so much human excrement in its works they had to call a hazardous-materials team.
While the sheer volume of human waste was surprising, its presence was not. Once the stations close, the bottom of BART station stairwells in downtown San Francisco are often a prime location for homeless people to camp for the night or find a private place to relieve themselves.
Normal users (ie, users behind NAT) shouldn't be running their own Tent servers, period. People who run their own servers are geeks by definition and can/should host in the cloud. Where "cloud" means "that part of the Internets that actually works."
But your second point is unanswerable. I'd go a little farther and say HTTP is actually a pretty good fit for Tent.
> Normal users shouldn't be running their own Tent servers
I used to agree with you that the general public shouldn't run their own server, but that argument may no longer apply.
For example, my home PC (a mac) wakes up from sleep whenever I remotely need something off of it (took no setup on my part). The machine is always backed up, and already has all of my photos and address book. It's been just as reliable as my paid shared web host. So, why not start deploying services from our home PCs.
Think of the obvious benefit—I no longer have to upload photos. Given some additional thought I bet we could come up with other benefits to hosting from home.
I'm not quite ready to advocate for this, but maybe it's time to reconsider this assumption.
Your home PC isn't really on the Internet. It's on a crappy pseudo-network that happens to be connected to the Internet.
This doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to use it as a server - you should. However, to use it as a server, you'll need a proxy/gateway server on the real Internet (ie, in the cloud) and a pseudo-protocol by which the gateway talks to your home PC. The pseudo-protocol could even look a lot like the protocol that real servers speak to each other on the real Internet - but there's no requirement that they be the same. (I'm not sure how well inbound port 80 works if you're on Comcast, anyway.) So, when designing the real-server protocol, it's a layering violation to also be thinking about this pseudopod.
I've got it - we'll encode Ethernet frames in JSON and tunnel them over HTTPS to an IP stack in Javascript. With a JS DHCP client, your browser will grab an IP address on the same subnet as the cloud server. And it's business up front, party in the back...
"Layering violation" is not the best term for what I meant, which is just "design mistake." Also the OSI model doesn't have much to do with reality. But if you want layering violations...
Let me see if I understand the argument you've made: the idea that there are no layering violations is silly because people can make bad designs? Should we blame poor layering discipline for all the C code out there that calls gets(3)?
Modularity is a good thing. Composability often is too. For systems deployed in the large, the end-to-end argument also guides designs to simple cores and complex clients.
But none of that means that any given layer "owns" any piece of functionality. It would indeed make a whole lot of sense to start thinking of IP as the new Ethernet, for instance. But we can't really do that, because the greybeard priesthood uses concepts like "layering violation" to shut down discussion and maintain intellectual turf.
I don't think we're arguing about anything substantive. For the record, I shave my neck every day. I also have no problem with thinking of IP as the new Ethernet.
By "layering violation" I really meant "layering" in a systems rather than a protocol sense. For example, it'd be a "layering violation" in this sense if your OS had a system call print_powerpoint_document(2).
Modularity, compositions, and reusable/flexible kernels are strong design components. "Layers" are a straitjacket. I'm automatically suspicious of designers who invoke them, because they tend to have more to do with shutting down discussions than they do with designing. That's all.
Your home PC isn't really on the Internet. It's on a crappy pseudo-network that happens to be connected to the Internet.
The hell are you talking about? I know I have a public IP address and am running several wikis, a Minecraft server and a Mumble server from my home, accesible via Internet (behind a firewall).
Including my dorm room (it was port restricted), my college apartment, my father's house, and my current home, I've always had a publicly accessible IP address.
The sweet spot both Tent and Diaspora are/were aiming for is one where most users use somebody else's service, but a few crazy neckbeards choose to self-host.
The neckbeards who actually care (often quite unreasonably) about privacy, etc, provide a very useful service to the ordinary users - they keep the central service(s) honest, ie, keep them from turning into Facebook. Because it's possible to escape, because the neckbeards keep that possibility open, the ordinary users are not captured.
At least, that's the theory. Diaspora didn't execute on it. Tent, well, we'll see.
I agree. This is like Usenet, or further back the old Fidonet days where most people accessed through a small local hub, but you still had the nutty people who ran their own node.
Make it easy for people to participate casually, but also make sure that people can customize to their liking and exert full control over their own stuff if they wish to, without causing trouble to the rest of the network.
No, nodes were usually BBS systems. If you wanted to use same protocol, then you did run your own point usually. Of course there were a few sysops with their own nodes. But Point was the usual way of personally joining the network using official protocols. Of course most did use qwk and bluewave etc to get messages quickly without setting up systems without mandatory zone mail hour etc. Didn't you run your own point / node? ;)
This is truly, exactly it. I don't expect my mother or friend to run a Tent server. But imagine Facebook were a Tent/Diaspora host. People would have left in DROVES by now if another, somewhat equal host could migrate their data in and provide better user respect.
I already see spam (with t.co links) on the alpha.app.net page. Surely nuking spam and spammers shouldn't be hard for a paid, centralized service like app.net?
Identi.ca also appears to be full of spam. Basically nothing will kill a public space faster or deader. There is a certain set of users who will stick around in a chat room/feed/forum/whatever full of spambots, but it's not a high-quality audience and doesn't tend to grow much.
("America! Fsck yeah!" I mean, some of us USans, proud sponsors of WIPO and other fine agreements, never thought we'd see the day our international representatives would be in the right. Sadly that day appears to be... 2005.)
Leap seconds are an abomination against nature: they make math not work on time. In chronological (atomic) time, math on time is stateless and referentially transparent. Like math. In sidereal time, it... isn't.
The general use of sidereal time is a gigantic global complexification with trivial cosmetic benefits to one specialized profession - astronomy. Unfortunately, it is also the astronomers who have been put in charge of time standardization, so the disaster will probably continue.
The right way to treat time as a programmer, if you're really serious about time, is to treat sidereal time as a display mode, like a timezone, and work internally in proper chronological time (eg, GPS time). Unfortunately the leap second system is a timezone that varies over time. But at least the complexity is isolated in the presentation layer.
Not-patenting a (practically, not legally) patentable algorithm doesn't come easily to academic researchers these days. The authors deserve kudos (unlike the rapacious Michael Luby, fountain code inventor) for trying to make sure people can use their algorithm sometime in the next 20 years.
I don't know that the terminology is common (or correct), but I find it pretty useful. It also corresponds intuitively to the way people in practice use these terms. I say keep it.
TLDR for OP: in both "DP" and "memoization" you construct a name-value table for a given function. In "memoization" you construct it reactively, in "DP" proactively - where "reactively" means "lazily as we need it," and "proactively" means "any way that isn't reactively."
(A dag being just one way of storing this data structure. Generally it is just a cache of function results - which can be stored as a table, derivation graph, or whatever.)
It's not a question of law but simply one of power. The USG is sovereign and not subject to any controlling legal authority. And its power, especially in financial matters, is global.
Therefore it can be analyzed as if it were a criminal actor. Does the USG have motive, propensity and opportunity to murder Bitcoin? Sadly, the answers are yes, yes and yes.
Motive and propensity - obvious. Opportunity - USG can't shut down Bitcoin trading, but it can smash the BTC price by destroying the exchangers. If it misses one, everyone who owns BTC and sees it as an investment will rush for that exit. Once it is closed, the price is zero by definition.
In retrospect, BTC will look like a very foolish bubble. In fact it is perfectly sound from an economic perspective, but not from a political perspective - it assumes a basically fair, just and sensible global legal order. Or at least a multipolar one. Closing our eyes and believing these illusions exist is not an effective way to make them exist.
BTC is flourishing. It continues to flourish because DOJ hasn't finished its paperwork yet. If you have some - sell it while you can. A big lump of gold feels nice in the hand.
Can you make a Tent (or more ambitious social p2p) client which is also an FB client? Of course.
FB and Twitter have APIs. Of course, they can revoke your key. But they have web clients, so they can be scraped.
Faced with a genuinely distributed opponent, there's no way the existing behemoths can keep your data in their silos.
For instance, FB can block tent.is at the API level or even at the IP level. But if Tent hosts pop up all around the internets, and if they are general-purpose enough that users can install their own scraping gateways, which can't be attacked centrally using technical or legal means... it's game over. To me this is one of the less recognized advantages of a distributed service.
I've been thinking about this idea a lot recently. I'm wondering if you would like to have a discussion? If so, please email me at maxim.hn.4418904@vekslers.org
This part of the Constitution is supposed to guarantee that 5-0 can’t fuck with you (unless they have “probable cause”)
But — the Conservatives found a way around this by allowing a “stop and frisk” aka “Terry stop” if cops have “reasonable suspicion” (this is why they are still allowed to fuck with you) (see Terry v. Ohio)
In an automobile, cops are often held to the “plain view” standard, although the Roberts court has recently increased their ability to fuck with you (see Beacoats v. Georgia)
Nowadays, keeping “your glove compartment locked” is not enough to protect you, as it was in the Jay-Z/Clinton era of liberal jurisprudence in criminal procedure.
While this is a wonderful text and an unimpeachable use of the technology, I can't avoid reflecting that certain initial choices of brand identification may present serious practical concerns in a prospective attempt to pivot and expand.