Right... fair point. But to expect a company to be responsible for the actions of a third party is unreasonable, so "enforce" really just means what Google will allow its employees to do as part of a contract.
It’s a perfectly reasonable expectation from a company claiming to be ethical. Google could always just tell the DoD ‘No’ and walk awayif they were really being as ethical ad they claim.
What exactly these guidelines will stipulate isn't clear, but Google says they will include a ban on the use of artificial intelligence in weaponry.
Even if Google follows this, how is it going to prevent the DoD from weaponizing what Google develops? Google is clearly not naive so this all reeks of a public show for something they’ll never be able to enforce.
It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an
RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not
any more than the publication in a regular journal. In fact, each
RFC has a status, relative to its relation with the Internet
standardization process: Informational, Experimental, or Standards
Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or
Historic. This status is reproduced on the first page of the RFC
itself, and is also documented in the periodic "Internet Official
Protocols Standards" RFC (STD 1).
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
and fucking JEP 286 (yay, let's make Java like JavaScript!) is a good idea,
What’s wrong with type inference and how would that make Java like Javascript? Just because both would use the keyword “var” does not make the concept the same especially as like in C# and C++11 everything would still be statically-typed unlike Javascript.
Bad guy intercepts encrypted email he wants to read. (MITM). He injects additional HTML data into the email (in his possession).
Except the email is still encrypted at this point. How could they inject HTML into an encrypted email?
So, yes, this does act as MITM.
Except the scenario you invented is not what this flaw is about and flaw doesn’t allow tampering with the encrypted email while in transit. The email isn’t decrypted until it reaches the email client and the email client has to be one of the buggy ones that don’t actually check the failure return.
Slashdot Mirror
Right... fair point. But to expect a company to be responsible for the actions of a third party is unreasonable, so "enforce" really just means what Google will allow its employees to do as part of a contract.
It’s a perfectly reasonable expectation from a company claiming to be ethical. Google could always just tell the DoD ‘No’ and walk awayif they were really being as ethical ad they claim.
What exactly these guidelines will stipulate isn't clear, but Google says they will include a ban on the use of artificial intelligence in weaponry.
Even if Google follows this, how is it going to prevent the DoD from weaponizing what Google develops? Google is clearly not naive so this all reeks of a public show for something they’ll never be able to enforce.
And the person is double fail since that RFC even states it’s not a “standard of any kind.”
It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an
RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not
any more than the publication in a regular journal. In fact, each
RFC has a status, relative to its relation with the Internet
standardization process: Informational, Experimental, or Standards
Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or
Historic. This status is reproduced on the first page of the RFC
itself, and is also documented in the periodic "Internet Official
Protocols Standards" RFC (STD 1).
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
Now let’s go to the I’m a Teapot RFC:
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
So basically you’re wrong as can be.
No it’s not. Also it was part of a yearly joke RFC.
Well then good news. NPM isn’t a serious web application. It’s an amateur hour piece of software.
Sure but the USPTO can't issue patents in South Korea. And again, the lawsuit has nothing to do with patents in the first place.
Execpt no patents are involved. This is all about claims of copyright infringement.
That Hunger Games Minecraft mod you keep referencing came out like 7 months after DayZ was released.
No one is being sued over patents. Secondly, what does the USPTO have to do with South Korea? You know, the country the lawsuit is filed in.
PUBG did certainly not come up with that game concept, the DayZ mod did it in ARMA 2 back in 2013.
The guy who made the DayZ mod is the creator of PUGB. So, yes, he did come up wih the game concept used in DayZ.
ARK is not a Battle Royale game. Secondly, the creator of PUGB has other Battle Royale games that predate ARK.
Unless they think they can patent a genre this'll end badly,
They don’t think they can patent a genre. That’s why this is about copyright infringement. Not that that makes there case any less silly.
Battle Royale is more than just a deathmatch, though.
Never?
Yes it is to save keystrokes in writing useless boilerplate that the compiler can infer on its own.
and fucking JEP 286 (yay, let's make Java like JavaScript!) is a good idea,
What’s wrong with type inference and how would that make Java like Javascript? Just because both would use the keyword “var” does not make the concept the same especially as like in C# and C++11 everything would still be statically-typed unlike Javascript.
You store off program state as data not as a serialized binary object.
Considering how many bugs exist in CPUs this statement doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. Doubly so when taking into account Meltdown and Spectre.
Bad guy intercepts encrypted email he wants to read. (MITM). He injects additional HTML data into the email (in his possession).
Except the email is still encrypted at this point. How could they inject HTML into an encrypted email?
So, yes, this does act as MITM.
Except the scenario you invented is not what this flaw is about and flaw doesn’t allow tampering with the encrypted email while in transit. The email isn’t decrypted until it reaches the email client and the email client has to be one of the buggy ones that don’t actually check the failure return.
Should have included HTML so that it could be decrypted surreptiously.
Wired misunderstands exploiting the flaw.
After reading your post, I can only assume this title was being ironic? You seem to understand it even less than Wired.
Because you’re name is Chick N. Little?
Is the flaw that Slashdot editors posted a duped story?
But will the commercial-grade QA process make up for the moths coming in under count?