Wikipedia is alright for a cursory examination of the facts and to get a general idea of what you should be researching.
What I am proposing is crowdsourcing people that "speak from authority". Not some geek in a basement with tremendous insight into the feelings of some Japanese Anime school girl character.
In general, educational text books are written by authorities on the subject, and I was not proposing that I myself get to write any part of it, or an AC for that matter either.
Wikipedia is great, just don't take it as 100% factual all the time, especially for articles that are contentious.
It won't stop anything. Look at the prices of very small portable storage. Things will go back to a sneakernet type deal, which going back is not exactly the right term either. Being honest, how many of us have swapped 100gig+ Music collections? Book collections? Movie collections?
An Internet Kill Switch would never be used for such purposes anyways as it affects other revenue in meat space as well. How can Verizon charge for you data that you can't be using? How do you make Google money if you can't connect it to it?
The Internet Kill Switch is merely a distraction for controlling us on a different level, which is what will be required to make it happen. For every device out there that you accept that requires "hacking" or "jail breaking" to get your full ownership out of you are participating just as much as these hackers to push the idea of a tyrannically controlled cyberspace.
Tragically, the average person can't even begin to understand or visualize what their rights are in cyberspace and that our very freedom to speak in cyberspace is being legislated, manipulated, and controlled.
When cyberspace becomes even more intertwined in real life (meat space) than it is already, watch how quickly that the control that cyberspace exerts over you with all the carrier locks, DRM, rootkits, trusted programming implementations, various Internet Identity legislation in the works translates to affecting what you can and cannot do/say in the real world.
But that's right..... people like me are just wearing tin foil hats and being paranoid in Mom's basement. I apologize and return us to our regular programming of the really orange guys in New Jersey that are banging really annoying chicks that think they are 10's, but I could honestly put them at 4's or less.
Personally, I hate roundabouts in the U.S. People are stupid enough driving on the road on average. For the past 10 years it seems that people sophisticated to understand the concept of "right of way" and "yield" gets smaller and smaller each year.
I avoid them at all costs. Last time I was in one, the roundabout signs *clearly* indicate with pictographs (that fucking aliens could understand sans music & lights) that if you are in the outer most lane you MUST exit and the VERY NEXT EXIT. You can only go to the 2nd or 3rd exit if you ARE IN THE INNER LANE. I was in the inner lane therefore had the right to enter the left hand lane of the 1st exit. Easy enough to verify since the signs spell out in universal language. The dickhead in the outer lane was supposed to enter the slow lane of the 1st exit with me.
Needless to say an accident was avoided because I destroyed a bunch of bushes and went into the median while he wildly over corrected and "drifted" a little bit.
Had the nerve to roll down his window and yell, "Where the fuck did you learn to drive?!".
I just pointed towards the sign and stared at him. I think he finally understood after looking at the sign for about 10 seconds and then just drove off. No apologies, not even a, "My bad dude".
So yeah..... we can get the roundabouts and Autobahns when the average level of driving intelligence rises above "Drunk Monkey".
P.S - To add insult to injury I have seen roundabouts in the US with different signs and different rules. So let's not even keep it consistent either.
They could easily find that purchasing the rights, as a work for hire, would be more cost-effective than purchasing copies.
I have this really crazy fucking idea. Totally nuts. But hear me out....
How about you "crowd source" with a couple dozen university doctorates, psychologists, and those that study effective learning techniques... and I dunnnnoooo... maybe give something back to the world ?
I'm sure that every engineer, scientist, and academic here realizes that their entire world is built on the efforts of others right? So why not contribute back to the environment that gave you the luxuries that you have? Why not become part of the foundation for the next generation of people that will push us ever farther forwards?
Screw the publishers and the book writers. Nothing in life says that they should be guarnteed a job and huge piles of cash. Or that when presented with an environmentally friendly and effective tool with the new technology we created (which was created most likely taking for granted all the hard work before it) we would not use it to its full potential?
I have nothing against people making money. However, if anything should follow the open source model, it is educational textbooks. If I really were smart enough and well respected enough in my field I would write a book if I thought it would help other people that do what I do. However, I doubt that I could create a book half as good as the programming books I have read anyways.
There really are some things that we should just all altruistically create for the Public Domain.
Perhaps it could be the fact that they used the word "grow" in the title about a web service being "developed", "programmed", and/or "implemented".
I never stuck my laptop in a pot of soil, watered it, and fertilized with shredded pieces of programming books and woke up the next morning with a web site programmed. I find it disappointing every time I try it too. I will let you all know when I succeed.
Additionally, the summary reminded of me Eddie Murphy. At first glance it sounded like the Chinese came up with a revolutionary way to increase the size of their "twitters".
Initially I thought it was culturally insensitive and I was not going to have any part of it.... on the other hand... I could always use a few more inches and I am sure that even John Holmes thought the same thing.
Needless to say I am more upset than you are, but for different reasons.
What does the physical universe have to do with math in this context? Are you saying that because the physical universe only has so many discrete "particles" in it that it somehow limits the number of possible permutations of a mathematical algorithm?
That makes no sense to me at all. Really.
I can make a number bigger than that already. Put a number on each atom in that 10^80 universe you claim exists. Then calculate how many unique numbers you could create by combining the numbers of those atoms. It is 10^80 raised to 10^80. A number significantly higher in order than anything I previously mentioned.
Well yeah.... that follows another security principle that if your hardware is physically possessed by another it is not longer secure.
So if you have a person that possess the key.. then I would agree that there is some pretty quick and efficient "cryptanalysis" that you can perform to obtain the key. I would hardly call that mathematical though and more akin to the brute force method:)
With respect, your scale is way off. It hardly matters what algorithm you are speaking of either. 60th order permutations? 100th order permutations? Leaving Quantum computing aside, I would think it would be hubris to claim that in the lifetime of a universe that a sentient race could not construct a machine capable of exploring that many permutations within a viable time frame.
Sure, 60th order sounds like a lot. However, if we were both in 1960 and I told you that in 2011 you can purchase as a consumer a machine capable of 159,000 MIPS, I believe your first question would be, "What is a MIPS?". When I tell you that it stands for Million Instructions Per Second I think your disbelief and awe would be that you could even do 1 MIPS, let alone thousands. Then when I tell you how much a machine that fits in my hand could do you would be shocked.
You're not accurate in your assumption, or your calculations. Furthermore, GPUs have been shown to be better capable for some cryptanalysis operations than a regular CPU. For similar reasons this is why there are video encoding products, hopefully open source ones soon, that shift that processing from the CPU to the GPU and see a very large performance increase.
So who can really say how many MIPS, BIPS, or TIPS we can do in 15 years? Who can really say how many orders of permutations per second we can attempt on a given cipher text?
In the words of one of my favorite characters, "I don't think that means what you think it means".
As for the revolutionary math..... dear god man... what would say has happened in the last 100 years? A Russian janitor solved with pencil and paper a shortest path problem (IIRC) that was considered revolutionary.
Yes, there will always be a cold war in cryptography but you may have a router capable of AES out of the box, but why are we having such a big IPv4-IPv6 problem again?
It's because the firmware on the millions of devices out there don't support it. So for practical purposes it does not matter if the DOD has an encryption algorithm designed by the NSA for military use that is as strong as you suggest, when it is not running on John Smith's wireless router down the street.
AES uptake was fairly rapid, yet the options for the older stuff were still around. I can't say how many devices you can support, but from my experience I did attempt to lock down all wireless with AES and long passphrases only to get pushback from clients and users. There were a great many devices that just simply did not connect or maintain a connection. So the environment will unfortunately dictate the security that can be used in a balance between the users needs and the security of the environment.
It's funny we are talking about permutations, time frames, etc. and you mention odds:)
How do you come to the conclusion that the odds are not in my favor in the first place? I have no vested interest in seeing encryption fail. For you to calculate odds means you can predict the future.
If you were back in 1960 could you really have predicted 2011? I know I could have not done so either.
So my original point regarding encryption remains. You cannot rule out the possibility and I hardly doubt that the creators of TKIP honestly thought they designed something with a weakness in it when it obviously became vetted enough to be used so widely.
To say AES will not have one in a few years is an assumption neither of us can make. Remember, I said over time, but not what time frame. So you are correct in a sense, but the big picture is that the weakness of encryption overall everywhere is dependent on economics and availability, not just mathematics.
By default 99% of all wireless and router manufacturers default to TKIP and AES when you choose WPA2 in the management screen. You actually need to choose just AES, if it offers it all. Additionally, I have found that leaving out TKIP causes more complaints because somebody's shiny POS can't negotiate correctly and when IT stands its grounds they are usually seen as inflexible, jerks, and not team players.
Hence, TKIP is practically everywhere right now. I don't think WPA2 is that much more secure right now than WEP. For a couple thousand dollars I could build a machine, or just get Amazon EC2 and have the resources to get through in a couple days. 15 minutes you would need some pretty serious resources behind you, but a smaller person could still do it with a few hours of packet captures and a few days of crunching on a home made GPU farm.
I still get your point though, you can secure WPA2 wireless with AES and a strong enough passphrase to make it suitably secure for most situations.
I still go the extra mile and create two wireless networks. One for secure access and one for public or recreational access. That way all the guests, execs, and employees get to connect their iCrap, Smart phone, etc. to a public network, and the execs have to negotiate secure VPN tunnels over wireless to gain secure access on their corporate laptops.
I myself connect the same way on my wireless and anything I connect to uses SSH with keys.
Encryption is vulnerable in two ways (I am not touching Quantum encryption here):
1) Brute force. All encryption basically works by having such a large number of possible keys that to brute force it would take years, if not life times. A simple dial combo lock could be brute forced in a week with a robot. Depends on the number of values on the dial, but last time I checked there were only 275k approx unique combinations. A robot would probably get the right one if it were checking one every 3 seconds or so.
2) You get a bolt cutter and cut the damn combo lock. This is where cryptanalysis comes into play. You find a mathematical or algorithmic weakness in the design or implementation that you can exploit to predict or outright obtain the key just by analysis of the cipher text and the exploit.
I remain wholly unconvinced that any of the encryption algorithms today will stand up over time to have no weaknesses found.
I'll take your word for it. However, that moron in the FBI may have been duty bound to listen, but obviously was the agent known as the "Fucking Retard" by the IT staff that has to take care of him at his office. We all know who they are at our offices we have been at don't we?:)
Duty bound is great.... when the agent is smart enough to understand that not every thing with a blinking light on it in the building needs to be transferred and processed into evidence.
I think the reason why the people I mentioned had an easier time was not only that the spoke slowly and calmly but *convinced* the agent that they were not the responsible party, were impartial, wanted to help law enforcement, and could be a valuable asset to the agent to help him nail his suspect to the wall.
If only your logic applied to Deeds of Trust and proving that you have the mortgage note maybe then hundreds of thousands of people would not have had their homes stolen from them.
Same issue. Mortgage companies literally come into the courts with bulk requests and as long as the Deed of Trust was attached the judges were rubber stamping them according to the law. You could not even argue legal standing without filing an additional lawsuit naming the mortgage company as the defendant, precluding all possibilities of a counter claim in the same court case.
For years and years and years now that same concept, the rights-holder involved at every step, has been bypassed to increase the speed, efficiency, and lower the costs of securitizing mortgages at the extreme detriment of the home owners.
If only judges would start standing up more en masse and say enough is enough with crazy attempts like this where legal standing was questionable in the beginning.
Don't get me wrong, hearing that Righthaven got its ass handed to them is good news for the day, but hardly as a huge of a win if true legal standing was required for the real crisis.... the housing clusterfuck of the last 3 years.
P.S - I did have a home stolen from me. Two financial institutions both claimed I needed to be paying them and they took over the mortgage. Still involved with a fraud investigation, but still lost the house. It did not matter that I tried to explain to the judge that I had no way of knowing which entity was the correct one to pay since they both had the power to foreclose on me in two different court cases. Explain that BS.
What I find really curious here is there anything we can learn from this?
For instance, Velcro was invented by investigating a rather simple phenomenon in nature and then using material sciences to recreate it.
These seem to be extremely small areas measured in millimeters and the actual effective area in micrometers. Could we learn from this to create sound producing products that can produce extremely loud sounds yet be hundreds of times smaller than any current technology we have.
Penis jokes aside, there are some very interesting observations here that might have practical applications.
Maybe. I can tell you from experience that it will entirely depend on the investigator.
That moron from the FBI will be infamous forever for his rampant stupidity in destroying hundreds of businesses by taking every server in the entire data center.
If the investigator is reasonable, and you are performing services on behalf of another company or user, you can calmly explain that seizure is not required. That the investigator is far better off using you as an expert to get the information they need instead of destroying you for 24 hours until you can come back from backups, or if you are lucky, be located in geographically dispersed locations beyond his/her jurisdiction.
I know personally of just a situation in which the investigator was talked out of seizure and convinced that the best people for the job to help with forensic analysis of the customer, their code, and their databases was the operator himself. Even got paid by the government to keep the server up and running and provide reports about the network traffic, customers, accounts, transactions etc.
All of that being said, it is ridiculous to assume that a ISP based email address, or personal/corporate domain email address is anymore "legally" traceable than any of the free services. If I want to send an anonymous email that cannot be tracked, I will be able to do so quite easily.
I proved this years ago. Some guy in the office said that he could track everybody by email and that it could not be faked. Well a couple of email messages sent from him announcing his romantic intentions towards a horse that he tracked back to his email server, and tracked back to his station convinced him otherwise.
Email is not proof of an identity. The use of email at any one time is not conclusive proof that the owner of the account even originated the email message at all. Unless each email is encrypted and signed, there is no way to conclusively link the email or its content to an individual........ Just like an IP address.
We all know that WPA2 can be cracked in under 15 minutes with the right resources and the most wireless security is akin to a wet paper towel to anybody that possesses to tools and knowledge.
Turning it over to the police is the easy part. Convincing an ignorant investigator that seizing $50k worth of equipment is overkill and just taxes their forensic resources is the hard part. To say that is legal in a court of law is something to that will depend on how good the lawyer is. Give me 15 minutes in a court room and I can convince anybody that I can impersonate just about anybody on the Internet in a fairly short period of time. You don't need to be a super hacker to do it either. Just download some tools and script kiddie away!:)
First off, this is not really off topic, because it is has very much to do with the level of state involvement in our lives and the balance between state and citizen.
Nobody has the right to raid my wallet for cash to pay for those things.
Well technically we do. Unless you are somebody that makes arguments about how government does not have the rights to tax people for whatever reason. Which I will admit, I don't keep up with those arguments simply because government cannot operate without taxes or without taking resources directly from people to do what they need. I prefer the taxes instead of the military showing up to my business and telling me they are taking X amount of product.
I talk with a lot of people, and have a lot of friends and relatives that think the way that you do. I can respect where you are coming from. You worked damn hard, made good decisions, and are a productive member of society. So why is it that you must suffer because other people are uneducated and irresponsible fools that need to be taken care of?
There are two ways to look at this.
1) Human compassion. In no way I am saying you are a bad person at all. All I am saying is that we have become so big as a society we have forgotten that we all started out as a group that highly depended on others to survive. We took care of our sick. Hospitality was usually a given just 150-200 years ago. If you were a traveler in need it was not uncommon for you to find a farm, collective, or village and be offered help. You usually returned the favor by helping them with their work. Also, it was not uncommon for people to share beds either that just met.
These are things that we have forgotten as we have advanced so quickly and independence and individuality has gone so far that we even distance ourselves and have lost strong family ties. I have quite a few Chinese-American friends where entire families live in huge houses and they all pull together. Quite different from a cultural perspective, but is actually more consistent with the rest of the world.
We see people today in need and in pain and we look the other way. Our fast paced lives, made more difficult by financial constraints and rampant consumption lead us to ignore people in need where we would have freely helped them out in the recent centuries before. You could say it was the "Christian" thing to do, or justify in some other way, but it really was part of our culture until recently.
2) Pure, heartless, emotionless logic.
Government sucks. All of those ass clowns in corporations and legislative bodies lead to such huge amounts of inefficiency you are perfectly correct to be pissed off that government takes your money and uses it in ways that are stupid, wasteful, and not consistent with the will of People.
That being said, in a purely selfish manner (remember this is logic), you're interests are better served by taking care of these people. You should consider Maslov's Pyramid. If we completely got rid of all social programs and had zero Socialism in the US, were purely Free Market (Illusion), then what would happen to all those people?
Sure.... you would not be paying for them, but you would keep looking over your shoulder. Desperate people do desperate things. So unless you want to start deporting Americans that cannot support themselves fully, or medical problems they cannot afford to have looked at which is tantamount to Eugenics, you would have a percentage of the population that WILL resort to criminal activity.
I have been a consultant for so long and relied on my strength of will to survive. Did not have medical insurance because I always felt invincible and healthy as a horse. When I started having issues I realized that I could not afford or get approved for medical insurance. I don't mind saying that I got pretty desperate and have some insight into just what some people are going th
I already went down have the page and nobody has pointed this out at all........
Most spam filters suck. Even the good ones. False positives and false negatives all over the place.
The best it can do is just add to the point system and hopefully, if the spammers are not really smart (which some of them are very smart), it will score high enough to get to the junk mail filter.
Filters have nothing to do with it. IPv4 address space limitations and hosting difficulties are what is causing SPAM levels to drop.
I can't believe nobody pointed this out in the article or a post yet. Spamhause, SpamCop, and the plethera of other RBLs. Not to mention the PBLs and other block lists where you can block entire countries.
99% of all my SPAM is blocked with a simple DNS lookup. That does not happen with filters either. RBLs inspect and ruthlessly keep track of spamming organizations and their movements. SPAM friendly network ranges get blocked all the time.
Last, but hardly least, the PBL. Hard for a botnet to send you email from a SMTP communication on a residential IP address huh? Especially when the ISP itself might block it by policy (Cox in the South West is infamous for it), and well maintained PBLs mean that I will add 100 to the score just for being on one. I only need 4.5 to block.
That's why. IP Addresses are not easy to come by anymore and when you keep moving around and your entire block keeps getting a value added to the score that by itself classifies it as SPAM it does not matter how good the SPAM'r is, or how good the filters are, but *where* the SPAM is sent from.
We have got pretty damn good at identifying the networks and IP addresses of where SPAM is originating it from.
IPv6 being implemented will cause a resurgence. A spectacular one I think, because I know firsthand from several different filters that they are not actually that good. I can see it because when the RBL does not flag it, it lets through about 4/10 SPAM messages with a score *just* below 4.5. Which is not the default for the filter I am using right now. I lowered it. Those are smart spammers. I have seen SPAM messages that are so obvious, yet get scores in the 2-3 range. Those are the ones "in it to win it".
Don't get me started on Yahoo, or any other free email provider. They suck balls. I have a test GMail account and some friends on it and they tell me it is the best so far.
The reason the big guys don't use RBLs as much? The managers are cheap bastards because querying Spamhause 100k in 5 minutes they have this quite unreasonable position of wanting to be compensated. Yet the big ones, to my knowledge, don't put together their own RBLs. Mabye Google does, but Yahoo lets in over half the crap all the time.
I was introduced to Monty Python by a friend and did not initially understand how passionate he was about them. I came to understand it fairly quickly. It was different, quite different in fact, than American humor at the time. At least to me.
I loved the parts of the shows that I did get to watch, and then of course... the Movie. "It's just a flesh wound", "Holy Hand Grenade", and the difference between an African and European Swallow.
That being said, I think that Chapman was one of the best parts of Yellow Beard and how I remember him the most. Yellow Beard was pretty unusual considering it's cast for such a goofball movie. Madeline Kahn was already well established as an actress with Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder for such silliness, as well as Cleese and Idle, but it also had Peter Boyle (Everybody loves Raymond, Crazy Joe and Young Frankestein), and of course Marty Feldman came along for the ride.
Stranger still it had James Mason and Peter Cook.
Last, but certainly not least..... it had Cheech and Chong in it.
You could not come up with a better movie with an all star cast in it if you tried and with a wonderful topping of Cheech and Chong added to it.
THAT is my best memory of Chapman. I watch that movie at least once a year and still laugh my ass off.
You missed his point. I don't store passwords in the database encrypted or hashed or salted or with a little sprinkling of lemon pepper.
Why would I? To say it is inexcusable (GP of who you replied to) is being simplistic. Encrypting field values in a database is not a security panacea, and letting yourself have that false sense of security is what is inexcusable. Once I am inside your inner network your encrypted field values are not going to stop me for very long.
Security comes in layers......
The user is on a SSL encrypted page when they enter the password. I realize there has been some recent developments that make me question just how secure a certificate really is, but I have done my part to secure the communication between me and the user.
Additionally, we use javascript to encrypt the more sensitive AJAX back to the web servers. Of course I realize that the threat can come from the users too, so that just provides security for the user, not for us. From there they make another secure API call to a whole different set of servers that are separate from the web servers. Hack a web server and all you really get is the ability to make direct API calls. That does not really get our panties in a bunch either because we allow some customers to have their own credentials and rights all the way down to the functions themselves. No different really, except you got the API credentials for that webserver. Congrats. You still can't access the databases or run SQL statements, and no API calls exist that will allow you to pull a "list" of all users, profiles, passwords, etc. We are also SQL Injection proof. Yes, I said proof. It's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination and is actually quite easy. You can pass data to API calls all day long attempting to do so and will just fail. It's not rocket science on how SQL Injection works. Validate data, inspect the statement, don't allow characters like the ' symbol, and when absolutely required just base64 encode the whole string or blob when it gets added to the statement. You would just back a field value in your call with your SQL Injection attempt:)
In order to get to the database files themselves you would need to compromise the API servers which are the only servers with direct access to all the database servers on their own network. Only at that point would you even have the ability to run your own SQL statements, or grab one of the customer databases.
So once again, if I already have multiple layers of security, and I don't rely on open source hacked together out of the box but our own code bases, why the extra step of encrypting the database field?
Granted, it is an additional layer of security. However, there are no API calls that even exist that will give a response document back with the password. You can get limited profile information based on your API credentials, limited to the databases and customers that you are allowed access to.
Passwords and financial information are *never* sent back in any API call at all. Ever. Nobody needs it, and even customer service only gets the last 4 of a credit card or social, not the whole thing.
Saying that you need to encrypt all passwords in the database is being simplistic. Security comes in layers, and at least in our case, if you CAN make a SQL query against a database directly and retrieve all the record data we are already deeply screwed. That is because you will have already owned us to the point that the whole inner networks are at your disposal, and you long ago got past the DMZ and whatever security our firewalls and hardened API servers were providing.
P.S - We are entirely open source with our platforms. The difference is, that we don't just take a plug-in and "go with it". We write most of our own code and heavily modify and inspect all the open source code we use for our projects. In some cases, we have written whole systems from scratch.
Well I can't wait for this story to hit the US nationwide:)
Bad economy. People have very little disposable income. Summer Heat Waves in the South West where average temperatures are now over 100F.
When your ass is pissed off, sweaty, and in a dark room trying to survive at 85-88F because you can't afford an electric bill higher than that and fucking Wall Street and AIG gets bailed out... but you have to sit in the heat.... and the military gets a 20B budget to A/C their asses over there?
I'm thinking that some people might be *slightly* miffed. Yes Sir. I am.
The webmasters will notice an increase in IE usage and ignore html 5.... not very bright Asa.
If it were only that simple. Every single enterprise website and project that we have developed on, it has been clear from the beginning that we needed to support all major browsers. Period.
My bank the other day made a change that broke transfer capability in the latest version of Chrome. I called figuring it was an account problem and they stated they don't support Chrome and to try FF.
Well that is unacceptable. It really is unacceptable to any serious business that wants a working web presence that can not support the majority of all of their current customers browsers plus future ones. Incompatibility is not an option.
By itself, it generates customer support calls time and time and time again. The true costs of not supporting an browser are more than one might think.
From the consumer's perspective they don't care about *your* problems. Telling them you don't support something and they need to change a browser does not always go over well. Especially when you just up and "decide" that you don't support IE 7 anymore at all.
Devs that make websites that say anywhere on it that the site is best viewed in Firefox are amateurs at best, sadistic jerks at worst, and clearly have no business sense.
It really just comes down to "sucks to be you". That's the current situation of a web developer that has to make some pretty complex sites.
All the devs out there need to nut up and just make your website and all the code compatible in 95% of all browsers. Which does mean you can ditch IE 6. It's percentage is so small that you can safely ignore it.
It's hard work, it takes skill, but it can be done.
So enterprise can just ignore FF and go with IE8/9 or Chrome. Webmasters don't have the option you are thinking that they do. Not if they are true professionals delivering complex websites that just need to "work".
Believe me, I hate it more than anybody that the ass clowns in *all* of the browser companies can't get along and render a document the same way. That's life. *sigh*. I just have to work harder and make sure we have IE7/8/9, Chrome, FF whatever, Opera, & Safari covered.
I can remember waking up in the recovery room, doing a few limited things, and then I don't remember anything else for about an hour. I thought I passed out. However, I was told by the doctors, nurses, and a family member that I was remarkable lucid and able to understand and answer questions.
No memories though. It is just a complete blank. I'm sure any college student out there can relate to what I am saying.
Given that Offers and gmail come from different groups within Google, and I'd expect that no one on the Offers team knows much about how priority inbox is implemented and no one on the gmail team was thinking much about Offers other than to note there was a launch party, I can see exactly how this would happen. Or maybe it is intentional... but I doubt it.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes it is very much as you suspect. You work for Google? You have to know that Google is like a creature with a hundred arms and that on any one day, one arm might meet the next one for the very first time.
This is absolutely confirmed with YouTube and those responsible for Google authentication. Those teams do NOT communicate very well and remind me of how NASA crashed a billion dollars into Mars.
I have been told point blank by people working on the YouTube API that they don't fully understand, have full access, or good documentation for the authentication portion of that absolutely massive API you guys have over there. I authenticate through Google, then make my request through YouTube. If I want a good reliable answer I need to limit my questions to YouTube.
P.S - This is not really a rant. Those guys on the YouTube API are really nice guys. You would be surprised by how much crap they have to put up with from frustrated programmers. Due, in part, to the level of cooperation between all of your departments at Google. I'm sure that is not exactly news to you is it?
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia is alright for a cursory examination of the facts and to get a general idea of what you should be researching.
What I am proposing is crowdsourcing people that "speak from authority". Not some geek in a basement with tremendous insight into the feelings of some Japanese Anime school girl character.
In general, educational text books are written by authorities on the subject, and I was not proposing that I myself get to write any part of it, or an AC for that matter either.
Wikipedia is great, just don't take it as 100% factual all the time, especially for articles that are contentious.
It won't stop anything. Look at the prices of very small portable storage. Things will go back to a sneakernet type deal, which going back is not exactly the right term either. Being honest, how many of us have swapped 100gig+ Music collections? Book collections? Movie collections?
An Internet Kill Switch would never be used for such purposes anyways as it affects other revenue in meat space as well. How can Verizon charge for you data that you can't be using? How do you make Google money if you can't connect it to it?
The Internet Kill Switch is merely a distraction for controlling us on a different level, which is what will be required to make it happen. For every device out there that you accept that requires "hacking" or "jail breaking" to get your full ownership out of you are participating just as much as these hackers to push the idea of a tyrannically controlled cyberspace.
Tragically, the average person can't even begin to understand or visualize what their rights are in cyberspace and that our very freedom to speak in cyberspace is being legislated, manipulated, and controlled.
When cyberspace becomes even more intertwined in real life (meat space) than it is already, watch how quickly that the control that cyberspace exerts over you with all the carrier locks, DRM, rootkits, trusted programming implementations, various Internet Identity legislation in the works translates to affecting what you can and cannot do/say in the real world.
But that's right..... people like me are just wearing tin foil hats and being paranoid in Mom's basement. I apologize and return us to our regular programming of the really orange guys in New Jersey that are banging really annoying chicks that think they are 10's, but I could honestly put them at 4's or less.
I guess if you are not American.....
Personally, I hate roundabouts in the U.S. People are stupid enough driving on the road on average. For the past 10 years it seems that people sophisticated to understand the concept of "right of way" and "yield" gets smaller and smaller each year.
I avoid them at all costs. Last time I was in one, the roundabout signs *clearly* indicate with pictographs (that fucking aliens could understand sans music & lights) that if you are in the outer most lane you MUST exit and the VERY NEXT EXIT. You can only go to the 2nd or 3rd exit if you ARE IN THE INNER LANE. I was in the inner lane therefore had the right to enter the left hand lane of the 1st exit. Easy enough to verify since the signs spell out in universal language. The dickhead in the outer lane was supposed to enter the slow lane of the 1st exit with me.
Needless to say an accident was avoided because I destroyed a bunch of bushes and went into the median while he wildly over corrected and "drifted" a little bit.
Had the nerve to roll down his window and yell, "Where the fuck did you learn to drive?!".
I just pointed towards the sign and stared at him. I think he finally understood after looking at the sign for about 10 seconds and then just drove off. No apologies, not even a, "My bad dude".
So yeah..... we can get the roundabouts and Autobahns when the average level of driving intelligence rises above "Drunk Monkey".
P.S - To add insult to injury I have seen roundabouts in the US with different signs and different rules. So let's not even keep it consistent either.
They could easily find that purchasing the rights, as a work for hire, would be more cost-effective than purchasing copies.
I have this really crazy fucking idea. Totally nuts. But hear me out....
How about you "crowd source" with a couple dozen university doctorates, psychologists, and those that study effective learning techniques... and I dunnnnoooo... maybe give something back to the world ?
I'm sure that every engineer, scientist, and academic here realizes that their entire world is built on the efforts of others right? So why not contribute back to the environment that gave you the luxuries that you have? Why not become part of the foundation for the next generation of people that will push us ever farther forwards?
Screw the publishers and the book writers. Nothing in life says that they should be guarnteed a job and huge piles of cash. Or that when presented with an environmentally friendly and effective tool with the new technology we created (which was created most likely taking for granted all the hard work before it) we would not use it to its full potential?
I have nothing against people making money. However, if anything should follow the open source model, it is educational textbooks. If I really were smart enough and well respected enough in my field I would write a book if I thought it would help other people that do what I do. However, I doubt that I could create a book half as good as the programming books I have read anyways.
There really are some things that we should just all altruistically create for the Public Domain.
Perhaps it could be the fact that they used the word "grow" in the title about a web service being "developed", "programmed", and/or "implemented".
I never stuck my laptop in a pot of soil, watered it, and fertilized with shredded pieces of programming books and woke up the next morning with a web site programmed. I find it disappointing every time I try it too. I will let you all know when I succeed.
Additionally, the summary reminded of me Eddie Murphy. At first glance it sounded like the Chinese came up with a revolutionary way to increase the size of their "twitters".
Initially I thought it was culturally insensitive and I was not going to have any part of it.... on the other hand... I could always use a few more inches and I am sure that even John Holmes thought the same thing.
Needless to say I am more upset than you are, but for different reasons.
What does the physical universe have to do with math in this context? Are you saying that because the physical universe only has so many discrete "particles" in it that it somehow limits the number of possible permutations of a mathematical algorithm?
That makes no sense to me at all. Really.
I can make a number bigger than that already. Put a number on each atom in that 10^80 universe you claim exists. Then calculate how many unique numbers you could create by combining the numbers of those atoms. It is 10^80 raised to 10^80. A number significantly higher in order than anything I previously mentioned.
Well yeah.... that follows another security principle that if your hardware is physically possessed by another it is not longer secure.
So if you have a person that possess the key.. then I would agree that there is some pretty quick and efficient "cryptanalysis" that you can perform to obtain the key. I would hardly call that mathematical though and more akin to the brute force method :)
With respect, your scale is way off. It hardly matters what algorithm you are speaking of either. 60th order permutations? 100th order permutations? Leaving Quantum computing aside, I would think it would be hubris to claim that in the lifetime of a universe that a sentient race could not construct a machine capable of exploring that many permutations within a viable time frame.
Sure, 60th order sounds like a lot. However, if we were both in 1960 and I told you that in 2011 you can purchase as a consumer a machine capable of 159,000 MIPS, I believe your first question would be, "What is a MIPS?". When I tell you that it stands for Million Instructions Per Second I think your disbelief and awe would be that you could even do 1 MIPS, let alone thousands. Then when I tell you how much a machine that fits in my hand could do you would be shocked.
You're not accurate in your assumption, or your calculations. Furthermore, GPUs have been shown to be better capable for some cryptanalysis operations than a regular CPU. For similar reasons this is why there are video encoding products, hopefully open source ones soon, that shift that processing from the CPU to the GPU and see a very large performance increase.
So who can really say how many MIPS, BIPS, or TIPS we can do in 15 years? Who can really say how many orders of permutations per second we can attempt on a given cipher text?
In the words of one of my favorite characters, "I don't think that means what you think it means".
As for the revolutionary math..... dear god man... what would say has happened in the last 100 years? A Russian janitor solved with pencil and paper a shortest path problem (IIRC) that was considered revolutionary.
Yes, there will always be a cold war in cryptography but you may have a router capable of AES out of the box, but why are we having such a big IPv4-IPv6 problem again?
It's because the firmware on the millions of devices out there don't support it. So for practical purposes it does not matter if the DOD has an encryption algorithm designed by the NSA for military use that is as strong as you suggest, when it is not running on John Smith's wireless router down the street.
AES uptake was fairly rapid, yet the options for the older stuff were still around. I can't say how many devices you can support, but from my experience I did attempt to lock down all wireless with AES and long passphrases only to get pushback from clients and users. There were a great many devices that just simply did not connect or maintain a connection. So the environment will unfortunately dictate the security that can be used in a balance between the users needs and the security of the environment.
It's funny we are talking about permutations, time frames, etc. and you mention odds :)
How do you come to the conclusion that the odds are not in my favor in the first place? I have no vested interest in seeing encryption fail. For you to calculate odds means you can predict the future.
If you were back in 1960 could you really have predicted 2011? I know I could have not done so either.
So my original point regarding encryption remains. You cannot rule out the possibility and I hardly doubt that the creators of TKIP honestly thought they designed something with a weakness in it when it obviously became vetted enough to be used so widely.
To say AES will not have one in a few years is an assumption neither of us can make. Remember, I said over time, but not what time frame. So you are correct in a sense, but the big picture is that the weakness of encryption overall everywhere is dependent on economics and availability, not just mathematics.
TKIP is all you need.
By default 99% of all wireless and router manufacturers default to TKIP and AES when you choose WPA2 in the management screen. You actually need to choose just AES, if it offers it all. Additionally, I have found that leaving out TKIP causes more complaints because somebody's shiny POS can't negotiate correctly and when IT stands its grounds they are usually seen as inflexible, jerks, and not team players.
Hence, TKIP is practically everywhere right now. I don't think WPA2 is that much more secure right now than WEP. For a couple thousand dollars I could build a machine, or just get Amazon EC2 and have the resources to get through in a couple days. 15 minutes you would need some pretty serious resources behind you, but a smaller person could still do it with a few hours of packet captures and a few days of crunching on a home made GPU farm.
I still get your point though, you can secure WPA2 wireless with AES and a strong enough passphrase to make it suitably secure for most situations.
I still go the extra mile and create two wireless networks. One for secure access and one for public or recreational access. That way all the guests, execs, and employees get to connect their iCrap, Smart phone, etc. to a public network, and the execs have to negotiate secure VPN tunnels over wireless to gain secure access on their corporate laptops.
I myself connect the same way on my wireless and anything I connect to uses SSH with keys.
Encryption is vulnerable in two ways (I am not touching Quantum encryption here):
1) Brute force. All encryption basically works by having such a large number of possible keys that to brute force it would take years, if not life times. A simple dial combo lock could be brute forced in a week with a robot. Depends on the number of values on the dial, but last time I checked there were only 275k approx unique combinations. A robot would probably get the right one if it were checking one every 3 seconds or so.
2) You get a bolt cutter and cut the damn combo lock. This is where cryptanalysis comes into play. You find a mathematical or algorithmic weakness in the design or implementation that you can exploit to predict or outright obtain the key just by analysis of the cipher text and the exploit.
I remain wholly unconvinced that any of the encryption algorithms today will stand up over time to have no weaknesses found.
LOL
I'll take your word for it. However, that moron in the FBI may have been duty bound to listen, but obviously was the agent known as the "Fucking Retard" by the IT staff that has to take care of him at his office. We all know who they are at our offices we have been at don't we? :)
Duty bound is great.... when the agent is smart enough to understand that not every thing with a blinking light on it in the building needs to be transferred and processed into evidence.
I think the reason why the people I mentioned had an easier time was not only that the spoke slowly and calmly but *convinced* the agent that they were not the responsible party, were impartial, wanted to help law enforcement, and could be a valuable asset to the agent to help him nail his suspect to the wall.
Yeah... gee willickers Batman....
If only your logic applied to Deeds of Trust and proving that you have the mortgage note maybe then hundreds of thousands of people would not have had their homes stolen from them.
Same issue. Mortgage companies literally come into the courts with bulk requests and as long as the Deed of Trust was attached the judges were rubber stamping them according to the law. You could not even argue legal standing without filing an additional lawsuit naming the mortgage company as the defendant, precluding all possibilities of a counter claim in the same court case.
For years and years and years now that same concept, the rights-holder involved at every step, has been bypassed to increase the speed, efficiency, and lower the costs of securitizing mortgages at the extreme detriment of the home owners.
If only judges would start standing up more en masse and say enough is enough with crazy attempts like this where legal standing was questionable in the beginning.
Don't get me wrong, hearing that Righthaven got its ass handed to them is good news for the day, but hardly as a huge of a win if true legal standing was required for the real crisis.... the housing clusterfuck of the last 3 years.
P.S - I did have a home stolen from me. Two financial institutions both claimed I needed to be paying them and they took over the mortgage. Still involved with a fraud investigation, but still lost the house. It did not matter that I tried to explain to the judge that I had no way of knowing which entity was the correct one to pay since they both had the power to foreclose on me in two different court cases. Explain that BS.
What I find really curious here is there anything we can learn from this?
For instance, Velcro was invented by investigating a rather simple phenomenon in nature and then using material sciences to recreate it.
These seem to be extremely small areas measured in millimeters and the actual effective area in micrometers. Could we learn from this to create sound producing products that can produce extremely loud sounds yet be hundreds of times smaller than any current technology we have.
Penis jokes aside, there are some very interesting observations here that might have practical applications.
How do you know that this bug is not already blind and relies on other senses :)
Maybe. I can tell you from experience that it will entirely depend on the investigator.
That moron from the FBI will be infamous forever for his rampant stupidity in destroying hundreds of businesses by taking every server in the entire data center.
If the investigator is reasonable, and you are performing services on behalf of another company or user, you can calmly explain that seizure is not required. That the investigator is far better off using you as an expert to get the information they need instead of destroying you for 24 hours until you can come back from backups, or if you are lucky, be located in geographically dispersed locations beyond his/her jurisdiction.
I know personally of just a situation in which the investigator was talked out of seizure and convinced that the best people for the job to help with forensic analysis of the customer, their code, and their databases was the operator himself. Even got paid by the government to keep the server up and running and provide reports about the network traffic, customers, accounts, transactions etc.
All of that being said, it is ridiculous to assume that a ISP based email address, or personal/corporate domain email address is anymore "legally" traceable than any of the free services. If I want to send an anonymous email that cannot be tracked, I will be able to do so quite easily.
I proved this years ago. Some guy in the office said that he could track everybody by email and that it could not be faked. Well a couple of email messages sent from him announcing his romantic intentions towards a horse that he tracked back to his email server, and tracked back to his station convinced him otherwise.
Email is not proof of an identity. The use of email at any one time is not conclusive proof that the owner of the account even originated the email message at all. Unless each email is encrypted and signed, there is no way to conclusively link the email or its content to an individual........ Just like an IP address.
We all know that WPA2 can be cracked in under 15 minutes with the right resources and the most wireless security is akin to a wet paper towel to anybody that possesses to tools and knowledge.
Turning it over to the police is the easy part. Convincing an ignorant investigator that seizing $50k worth of equipment is overkill and just taxes their forensic resources is the hard part. To say that is legal in a court of law is something to that will depend on how good the lawyer is. Give me 15 minutes in a court room and I can convince anybody that I can impersonate just about anybody on the Internet in a fairly short period of time. You don't need to be a super hacker to do it either. Just download some tools and script kiddie away! :)
First off, this is not really off topic, because it is has very much to do with the level of state involvement in our lives and the balance between state and citizen.
Nobody has the right to raid my wallet for cash to pay for those things.
Well technically we do. Unless you are somebody that makes arguments about how government does not have the rights to tax people for whatever reason. Which I will admit, I don't keep up with those arguments simply because government cannot operate without taxes or without taking resources directly from people to do what they need. I prefer the taxes instead of the military showing up to my business and telling me they are taking X amount of product.
I talk with a lot of people, and have a lot of friends and relatives that think the way that you do. I can respect where you are coming from. You worked damn hard, made good decisions, and are a productive member of society. So why is it that you must suffer because other people are uneducated and irresponsible fools that need to be taken care of?
There are two ways to look at this.
1) Human compassion. In no way I am saying you are a bad person at all. All I am saying is that we have become so big as a society we have forgotten that we all started out as a group that highly depended on others to survive. We took care of our sick. Hospitality was usually a given just 150-200 years ago. If you were a traveler in need it was not uncommon for you to find a farm, collective, or village and be offered help. You usually returned the favor by helping them with their work. Also, it was not uncommon for people to share beds either that just met.
These are things that we have forgotten as we have advanced so quickly and independence and individuality has gone so far that we even distance ourselves and have lost strong family ties. I have quite a few Chinese-American friends where entire families live in huge houses and they all pull together. Quite different from a cultural perspective, but is actually more consistent with the rest of the world.
We see people today in need and in pain and we look the other way. Our fast paced lives, made more difficult by financial constraints and rampant consumption lead us to ignore people in need where we would have freely helped them out in the recent centuries before. You could say it was the "Christian" thing to do, or justify in some other way, but it really was part of our culture until recently.
2) Pure, heartless, emotionless logic.
Government sucks. All of those ass clowns in corporations and legislative bodies lead to such huge amounts of inefficiency you are perfectly correct to be pissed off that government takes your money and uses it in ways that are stupid, wasteful, and not consistent with the will of People.
That being said, in a purely selfish manner (remember this is logic), you're interests are better served by taking care of these people. You should consider Maslov's Pyramid. If we completely got rid of all social programs and had zero Socialism in the US, were purely Free Market (Illusion), then what would happen to all those people?
Sure.... you would not be paying for them, but you would keep looking over your shoulder. Desperate people do desperate things. So unless you want to start deporting Americans that cannot support themselves fully, or medical problems they cannot afford to have looked at which is tantamount to Eugenics, you would have a percentage of the population that WILL resort to criminal activity.
I have been a consultant for so long and relied on my strength of will to survive. Did not have medical insurance because I always felt invincible and healthy as a horse. When I started having issues I realized that I could not afford or get approved for medical insurance. I don't mind saying that I got pretty desperate and have some insight into just what some people are going th
I already went down have the page and nobody has pointed this out at all........
Most spam filters suck. Even the good ones. False positives and false negatives all over the place.
The best it can do is just add to the point system and hopefully, if the spammers are not really smart (which some of them are very smart), it will score high enough to get to the junk mail filter.
Filters have nothing to do with it. IPv4 address space limitations and hosting difficulties are what is causing SPAM levels to drop.
I can't believe nobody pointed this out in the article or a post yet. Spamhause, SpamCop, and the plethera of other RBLs. Not to mention the PBLs and other block lists where you can block entire countries.
99% of all my SPAM is blocked with a simple DNS lookup. That does not happen with filters either. RBLs inspect and ruthlessly keep track of spamming organizations and their movements. SPAM friendly network ranges get blocked all the time.
Last, but hardly least, the PBL. Hard for a botnet to send you email from a SMTP communication on a residential IP address huh? Especially when the ISP itself might block it by policy (Cox in the South West is infamous for it), and well maintained PBLs mean that I will add 100 to the score just for being on one. I only need 4.5 to block.
That's why. IP Addresses are not easy to come by anymore and when you keep moving around and your entire block keeps getting a value added to the score that by itself classifies it as SPAM it does not matter how good the SPAM'r is, or how good the filters are, but *where* the SPAM is sent from.
We have got pretty damn good at identifying the networks and IP addresses of where SPAM is originating it from.
IPv6 being implemented will cause a resurgence. A spectacular one I think, because I know firsthand from several different filters that they are not actually that good. I can see it because when the RBL does not flag it, it lets through about 4/10 SPAM messages with a score *just* below 4.5. Which is not the default for the filter I am using right now. I lowered it. Those are smart spammers. I have seen SPAM messages that are so obvious, yet get scores in the 2-3 range. Those are the ones "in it to win it".
Don't get me started on Yahoo, or any other free email provider. They suck balls. I have a test GMail account and some friends on it and they tell me it is the best so far.
The reason the big guys don't use RBLs as much? The managers are cheap bastards because querying Spamhause 100k in 5 minutes they have this quite unreasonable position of wanting to be compensated. Yet the big ones, to my knowledge, don't put together their own RBLs. Mabye Google does, but Yahoo lets in over half the crap all the time.
I have been laughing for at least 5 minutes hysterically....... you pwned him so good. LOL
Thank you
You mention something completely different.
I was introduced to Monty Python by a friend and did not initially understand how passionate he was about them. I came to understand it fairly quickly. It was different, quite different in fact, than American humor at the time. At least to me.
I loved the parts of the shows that I did get to watch, and then of course... the Movie. "It's just a flesh wound", "Holy Hand Grenade", and the difference between an African and European Swallow.
That being said, I think that Chapman was one of the best parts of Yellow Beard and how I remember him the most. Yellow Beard was pretty unusual considering it's cast for such a goofball movie. Madeline Kahn was already well established as an actress with Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder for such silliness, as well as Cleese and Idle, but it also had Peter Boyle (Everybody loves Raymond, Crazy Joe and Young Frankestein), and of course Marty Feldman came along for the ride.
Stranger still it had James Mason and Peter Cook.
Last, but certainly not least..... it had Cheech and Chong in it.
You could not come up with a better movie with an all star cast in it if you tried and with a wonderful topping of Cheech and Chong added to it.
THAT is my best memory of Chapman. I watch that movie at least once a year and still laugh my ass off.
You missed his point. I don't store passwords in the database encrypted or hashed or salted or with a little sprinkling of lemon pepper.
Why would I? To say it is inexcusable (GP of who you replied to) is being simplistic. Encrypting field values in a database is not a security panacea, and letting yourself have that false sense of security is what is inexcusable. Once I am inside your inner network your encrypted field values are not going to stop me for very long.
Security comes in layers......
The user is on a SSL encrypted page when they enter the password. I realize there has been some recent developments that make me question just how secure a certificate really is, but I have done my part to secure the communication between me and the user.
Additionally, we use javascript to encrypt the more sensitive AJAX back to the web servers. Of course I realize that the threat can come from the users too, so that just provides security for the user, not for us. From there they make another secure API call to a whole different set of servers that are separate from the web servers. Hack a web server and all you really get is the ability to make direct API calls. That does not really get our panties in a bunch either because we allow some customers to have their own credentials and rights all the way down to the functions themselves. No different really, except you got the API credentials for that webserver. Congrats. You still can't access the databases or run SQL statements, and no API calls exist that will allow you to pull a "list" of all users, profiles, passwords, etc. We are also SQL Injection proof. Yes, I said proof. It's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination and is actually quite easy. You can pass data to API calls all day long attempting to do so and will just fail. It's not rocket science on how SQL Injection works. Validate data, inspect the statement, don't allow characters like the ' symbol, and when absolutely required just base64 encode the whole string or blob when it gets added to the statement. You would just back a field value in your call with your SQL Injection attempt :)
In order to get to the database files themselves you would need to compromise the API servers which are the only servers with direct access to all the database servers on their own network. Only at that point would you even have the ability to run your own SQL statements, or grab one of the customer databases.
So once again, if I already have multiple layers of security, and I don't rely on open source hacked together out of the box but our own code bases, why the extra step of encrypting the database field?
Granted, it is an additional layer of security. However, there are no API calls that even exist that will give a response document back with the password. You can get limited profile information based on your API credentials, limited to the databases and customers that you are allowed access to.
Passwords and financial information are *never* sent back in any API call at all. Ever. Nobody needs it, and even customer service only gets the last 4 of a credit card or social, not the whole thing.
Saying that you need to encrypt all passwords in the database is being simplistic. Security comes in layers, and at least in our case, if you CAN make a SQL query against a database directly and retrieve all the record data we are already deeply screwed. That is because you will have already owned us to the point that the whole inner networks are at your disposal, and you long ago got past the DMZ and whatever security our firewalls and hardened API servers were providing.
P.S - We are entirely open source with our platforms. The difference is, that we don't just take a plug-in and "go with it". We write most of our own code and heavily modify and inspect all the open source code we use for our projects. In some cases, we have written whole systems from scratch.
Well I can't wait for this story to hit the US nationwide :)
Bad economy. People have very little disposable income. Summer Heat Waves in the South West where average temperatures are now over 100F.
When your ass is pissed off, sweaty, and in a dark room trying to survive at 85-88F because you can't afford an electric bill higher than that and fucking Wall Street and AIG gets bailed out... but you have to sit in the heat.... and the military gets a 20B budget to A/C their asses over there?
I'm thinking that some people might be *slightly* miffed. Yes Sir. I am.
If only there was something they could put on the outside of the tent to keep sun/heat out...
Well..... aluminum foil would work pretty well. Not for camouflage purposes, but it would reduce the heat.
The webmasters will notice an increase in IE usage and ignore html 5. ... not very bright Asa.
If it were only that simple. Every single enterprise website and project that we have developed on, it has been clear from the beginning that we needed to support all major browsers. Period.
My bank the other day made a change that broke transfer capability in the latest version of Chrome. I called figuring it was an account problem and they stated they don't support Chrome and to try FF.
Well that is unacceptable. It really is unacceptable to any serious business that wants a working web presence that can not support the majority of all of their current customers browsers plus future ones. Incompatibility is not an option.
By itself, it generates customer support calls time and time and time again. The true costs of not supporting an browser are more than one might think.
From the consumer's perspective they don't care about *your* problems. Telling them you don't support something and they need to change a browser does not always go over well. Especially when you just up and "decide" that you don't support IE 7 anymore at all.
Devs that make websites that say anywhere on it that the site is best viewed in Firefox are amateurs at best, sadistic jerks at worst, and clearly have no business sense.
It really just comes down to "sucks to be you". That's the current situation of a web developer that has to make some pretty complex sites.
All the devs out there need to nut up and just make your website and all the code compatible in 95% of all browsers. Which does mean you can ditch IE 6. It's percentage is so small that you can safely ignore it.
It's hard work, it takes skill, but it can be done.
So enterprise can just ignore FF and go with IE8/9 or Chrome. Webmasters don't have the option you are thinking that they do. Not if they are true professionals delivering complex websites that just need to "work".
Believe me, I hate it more than anybody that the ass clowns in *all* of the browser companies can't get along and render a document the same way. That's life. *sigh*. I just have to work harder and make sure we have IE7/8/9, Chrome, FF whatever, Opera, & Safari covered.
Funny you mentioned not remembering.
I can remember waking up in the recovery room, doing a few limited things, and then I don't remember anything else for about an hour. I thought I passed out. However, I was told by the doctors, nurses, and a family member that I was remarkable lucid and able to understand and answer questions.
No memories though. It is just a complete blank. I'm sure any college student out there can relate to what I am saying.
Given that Offers and gmail come from different groups within Google, and I'd expect that no one on the Offers team knows much about how priority inbox is implemented and no one on the gmail team was thinking much about Offers other than to note there was a launch party, I can see exactly how this would happen. Or maybe it is intentional... but I doubt it.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes it is very much as you suspect. You work for Google? You have to know that Google is like a creature with a hundred arms and that on any one day, one arm might meet the next one for the very first time.
This is absolutely confirmed with YouTube and those responsible for Google authentication. Those teams do NOT communicate very well and remind me of how NASA crashed a billion dollars into Mars.
I have been told point blank by people working on the YouTube API that they don't fully understand, have full access, or good documentation for the authentication portion of that absolutely massive API you guys have over there. I authenticate through Google, then make my request through YouTube. If I want a good reliable answer I need to limit my questions to YouTube.
P.S - This is not really a rant. Those guys on the YouTube API are really nice guys. You would be surprised by how much crap they have to put up with from frustrated programmers. Due, in part, to the level of cooperation between all of your departments at Google. I'm sure that is not exactly news to you is it?