(Norway here)I haven't really read the fine print myself. I know many guarantee the throughput within their own network, but not beyond, for obvious reasons. But it doesn't seem to be much of an issue where I live.
I've been a customer of most of the major ISPs over the years, and I have yet to experience getting anything less than the promised throughput. There's also no throttling/shaping and no traffic limits.
I'm currently on 30/30 fibre and quite happy (they offer 50/50, 100/100 and 1000/1000 as well, though the latter two are "contact us for price"). It ain't free, but if this is what it costs to not end up with a broadband market similar to the US, then I'm happy to pay it.
Umm.. it's a banking website.. I dunno about your bank, but my bank takes 30+ seconds to log me in on a good day.
I covered that in my text. Ours are pretty much instant.
People will physically travel to other countries to give money to Nigeria scams, and you think any amount of technology will secure their online bank accounts? Now that's truly geek arrogance.
As with any thing else, there are no fool proof systems. You could shutdown online banking completely, and you'd just get more identity theft.
A bank having token based security today is somewhat like having a burglary alarm. It won't stop people from breaking in, but they're more likely to do the next house if they don't have an alarm (and if they _do_ pick yours, it's harder from them to do it unnoticed). There are still plenty of banks in some nations that do not even use token based security, or so I hear.
The calculator won't give you a new token for another 30-60 seconds (depending on configuration).
Of course, one could argue that people that won't notice anything odd with a forged site, also won't mind the usually instant "eeer, wrong!" taking a whole minute. But nothing will save the idiot from the persistent phisher, so at some point the line between security and convenience needs to be drawn.
I think the assumption would have to be made that the trojan prevents the token from actually being transmitted to the bank, thus giving the thief its one login.
As I mention in my other post though, I still don't see it as an issue, since every actual transaction would require a freshly generated token (assuming a sane bank).
The technique menaces the 2-factor authentication that some banks have instituted:
Sure, they could intercept my login, but that would get them nothing. A new token is required for each and every transaction once logged in. I suppose they could try to add an emulation layer of sorts for the entire bank site, but that starts to become a lot of work with a lot of opportunity to notice something strange going on.
As has been mentioned a few times in the thread now, this will not be phased. The Old World will forever change. Leveling 1-60 will be a new experience, regardless of whether you have expansion or not.
It won't be phased. They specifically stated they have reworked 1-60 leveling completely, including examples of the reworked flow between zones while leveling up.
I would log into my online bank, add an automatic payment for every two weeks to the person's account number, and check the "mail me a paper receipt for the transaction" box. A few days after each payment, I'd get the receipt of the transfer from the bank in my mailbox.
Granted, I'd never actually check that box. The only realistic reason for a dispute would be that I did not pay or the recipient did not notice the incoming cash on their statement. Should that happen I can always log in and pull up the past transactions for a quick screenshot, or order a printed receipt from the bank at that time.
The difference is that if the data is on the server, I would not be able to clone your card, then change the biometrics to my height etc. and pass myself off as you.
With that data on the card, and no server verification, I could.
Of course, the necessary assumption here is that the data on the server is not as readily modifiable as those on the card.
So, by the same token, if you are too feeble to stand getting mugged or raped, just don't on the high street after dark.
That's the point I was making in my other post. They're not proposing "cleaning up the net", they're proposing a curfew to reduce the risk you stumble upon a criminal. Exactly as you describe.
If I type www.mybank.com, my browser doesn't get mugged along the way and force me to hand over my wallet before it allows me access to the bank's web page.
But I think it is pretty clear that the majority of people in many if not most countries are more than willing to give up a little freedom in order to avoid the torrent of shite that meets you all too often on the internet.
I disagree. If the objective is to prevent people from running across objectionable content by accident, you accomplish your goal with a warning page you need to click through. There's no need to block.
I doubt the majority of the German population feels a need to be "protected" from ending up on a site for Counter Strike enthusiasts by accident, but by all means add a warning page to protect the ones that feel they need it, while not restraining those that do not.
Is it right that something paid for by the public should be a no-go area for much of the public?
But that's exactly what the law does. It makes areas no-go by blocking them for everybody. As I mentioned, they're not proposing the removal of content from the Internet, their intent is to block the parts of it they decide you don't want to see.
I didn't say a judge was not able to review their decisions. If the police starts going nuts with it you better believe you can drag them to court over it.
But the odds are rather slim. For one, the content of the filter is an international cooperation (it's the organized crime unit that's handling it here, not some traffic cop), so odds are it would take some doing to pollute it without somebody noticing. The criteria to end up on it is also rather narrow, the site has to contain explicit sexual abuse of children.
And, it is voluntary. If an ISP starts getting a horde of complaints, they'll just disable it.
To a lot of people the rather abstract benefits of "freedom of speech" are simply not important enough to outweigh more mundane concerns, like not being harrassed by the idiots that seem to dominate everything on the internet.
Here's a thought: Don't go there
Nobody's forcing them to surf around the Internet at random. It's perfectly possible to only use it for their country's major newspapers and online banking, if their psyche is so tender they cannot handle anonymous people writing stupid things.
If the Internet was invasive, I might concede you have a point. But, as the nickname for the law shows, this is about limiting _your_ access, not preventing the idiots out there from doing their thing. It's like instating a curfew to protect you from criminals.
For the record, I have nothing against child porn filters, which was the original notion of this law apparently. My country's ISPs all have one. The difference is the police decide what goes on that list after they manually check the sites, there's no political agenda. And it's not even a block, it's a warning you can click through.
Point well made. Two years to find it within a known 140-square-kilometre search area. And they knew what to look for. And they only _think_ they found it.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that for our current tech to detect it, these alien probes would need to be pretty freakin' huge.
That's not really the question. The question would be more along the lines of: What are the odds they would've located signs of the landers, with no idea where to look or that there was anything on the entire planet worth looking for?
Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.
I wouldn't go as far as to say they're incompetent. I do think they're jumping to conclusions, and I do think it is just opinion repeated enough to become "fact". And I'm sure a lot of them have the same feeling, but don't want to mess up their careers by speaking against the current zeitgeist. A few _have_ tried. Pointing out fallacies in the man made global warming theories is akin to walking around cursing people back in the middle ages. It only gets you burned at the stake, so why do it. When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science. That alone should make us all very suspicious.
There are too many instances of "we can't think of any other reason, so this must be man-made global warming", or "we have never seen this before, and we don't know what's causing it, but we're certain it's human emissions". I'm sorry, but you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause.
There are just too many variables. We can barely predict tomorrow's weather with any degree of accuracy (in some areas even that's stretching it), but we are supposed to believe any scientist that claims to have GLOBAL weather licked? I can't help but think those guys got an overdose of arrogance. Yes, they're very different things, but that's still faith, not science.
I've said this before: It doesn't matter. The proposed remedies (reduce emissions) are all good regardless. But the knee jerking hysterics-mongers are going about it all wrong. We're not solving a damn thing by politicians yapping about us all switching to electric cars. That's moving pollution, not reducing it. And the majority of "solutions" are of that sort, and only for political gain by playing on the armageddon fears of the population. Only now it's the elected officials spouting it, as opposed to the church or just the loon on the street corner.
Only a handful of (horrible) anti-virus packages cause any measurable slowdown these days. Not to mention that if you have a somewhat functional brain, you don't really need one.
I can't remember any time my anti-virus has detected something I didn't already know was there and had no intention of doing anything with but delete already. Since AV is free though, I don't see a reason not to run one.
The amount of money I spend on my WoW subscription in one month, I can burn through in the pub in about 2 hours.
I want to live where you live. A month worth of WoW buys me 1 drink or a maximum of 2 beer (more like 1.5). That's half an hour in the pub as opposed to two hours.
My cable company has had a pilot customer running at 1Gbps since late last year.
I suspect the real news here is the technology Virgin Media are using, not the speed, but it's a bit hard to tell from the summary and I'm too lazy to do the editors' job for them.
You'll use it because it's better than its proprietary peers
It's also the only player I can't get to output properly to spdif on any computer I try it on. It's the _only_ player I can't get to output to spdif.
It did work on the versions a few years back, but those are useless with current codecs and containers so that's no help. For the past umpteen versions it has output nothing but looping sound. If anybody knows the magic to fix that I'd be thrilled. But Mplayer Classic HC and ffdshow does the job pretty well so it's not a big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa, way to confuse "I just want to play a game for an hour" with, "I think I need a new vocation".
(Norway here)I haven't really read the fine print myself. I know many guarantee the throughput within their own network, but not beyond, for obvious reasons. But it doesn't seem to be much of an issue where I live.
I've been a customer of most of the major ISPs over the years, and I have yet to experience getting anything less than the promised throughput. There's also no throttling/shaping and no traffic limits.
I'm currently on 30/30 fibre and quite happy (they offer 50/50, 100/100 and 1000/1000 as well, though the latter two are "contact us for price"). It ain't free, but if this is what it costs to not end up with a broadband market similar to the US, then I'm happy to pay it.
Umm.. it's a banking website.. I dunno about your bank, but my bank takes 30+ seconds to log me in on a good day.
I covered that in my text. Ours are pretty much instant.
People will physically travel to other countries to give money to Nigeria scams, and you think any amount of technology will secure their online bank accounts? Now that's truly geek arrogance.
As with any thing else, there are no fool proof systems. You could shutdown online banking completely, and you'd just get more identity theft.
A bank having token based security today is somewhat like having a burglary alarm. It won't stop people from breaking in, but they're more likely to do the next house if they don't have an alarm (and if they _do_ pick yours, it's harder from them to do it unnoticed). There are still plenty of banks in some nations that do not even use token based security, or so I hear.
The calculator won't give you a new token for another 30-60 seconds (depending on configuration).
Of course, one could argue that people that won't notice anything odd with a forged site, also won't mind the usually instant "eeer, wrong!" taking a whole minute. But nothing will save the idiot from the persistent phisher, so at some point the line between security and convenience needs to be drawn.
I think the assumption would have to be made that the trojan prevents the token from actually being transmitted to the bank, thus giving the thief its one login.
As I mention in my other post though, I still don't see it as an issue, since every actual transaction would require a freshly generated token (assuming a sane bank).
The technique menaces the 2-factor authentication that some banks have instituted:
Sure, they could intercept my login, but that would get them nothing. A new token is required for each and every transaction once logged in. I suppose they could try to add an emulation layer of sorts for the entire bank site, but that starts to become a lot of work with a lot of opportunity to notice something strange going on.
As has been mentioned a few times in the thread now, this will not be phased. The Old World will forever change. Leveling 1-60 will be a new experience, regardless of whether you have expansion or not.
It won't be phased. They specifically stated they have reworked 1-60 leveling completely, including examples of the reworked flow between zones while leveling up.
I would log into my online bank, add an automatic payment for every two weeks to the person's account number, and check the "mail me a paper receipt for the transaction" box. A few days after each payment, I'd get the receipt of the transfer from the bank in my mailbox.
Granted, I'd never actually check that box. The only realistic reason for a dispute would be that I did not pay or the recipient did not notice the incoming cash on their statement. Should that happen I can always log in and pull up the past transactions for a quick screenshot, or order a printed receipt from the bank at that time.
In the US, yes, but not so here. I can't remember as much as seeing one for at least 15 years.
So, seen from the eyes of a nation where it has been all but a memory for nearly two decades, quaint is indeed a fitting term.
The difference is that if the data is on the server, I would not be able to clone your card, then change the biometrics to my height etc. and pass myself off as you.
With that data on the card, and no server verification, I could.
Of course, the necessary assumption here is that the data on the server is not as readily modifiable as those on the card.
So, by the same token, if you are too feeble to stand getting mugged or raped, just don't on the high street after dark.
That's the point I was making in my other post. They're not proposing "cleaning up the net", they're proposing a curfew to reduce the risk you stumble upon a criminal. Exactly as you describe.
If I type www.mybank.com, my browser doesn't get mugged along the way and force me to hand over my wallet before it allows me access to the bank's web page.
But I think it is pretty clear that the majority of people in many if not most countries are more than willing to give up a little freedom in order to avoid the torrent of shite that meets you all too often on the internet.
I disagree. If the objective is to prevent people from running across objectionable content by accident, you accomplish your goal with a warning page you need to click through. There's no need to block.
I doubt the majority of the German population feels a need to be "protected" from ending up on a site for Counter Strike enthusiasts by accident, but by all means add a warning page to protect the ones that feel they need it, while not restraining those that do not.
Is it right that something paid for by the public should be a no-go area for much of the public?
But that's exactly what the law does. It makes areas no-go by blocking them for everybody. As I mentioned, they're not proposing the removal of content from the Internet, their intent is to block the parts of it they decide you don't want to see.
How does a law blocking where you can surf prevent spam from reaching you?
This law isn't about protecting you, it's about limiting you.
I didn't say a judge was not able to review their decisions. If the police starts going nuts with it you better believe you can drag them to court over it.
But the odds are rather slim. For one, the content of the filter is an international cooperation (it's the organized crime unit that's handling it here, not some traffic cop), so odds are it would take some doing to pollute it without somebody noticing. The criteria to end up on it is also rather narrow, the site has to contain explicit sexual abuse of children.
And, it is voluntary. If an ISP starts getting a horde of complaints, they'll just disable it.
To a lot of people the rather abstract benefits of "freedom of speech" are simply not important enough to outweigh more mundane concerns, like not being harrassed by the idiots that seem to dominate everything on the internet.
Here's a thought: Don't go there
Nobody's forcing them to surf around the Internet at random. It's perfectly possible to only use it for their country's major newspapers and online banking, if their psyche is so tender they cannot handle anonymous people writing stupid things.
If the Internet was invasive, I might concede you have a point. But, as the nickname for the law shows, this is about limiting _your_ access, not preventing the idiots out there from doing their thing. It's like instating a curfew to protect you from criminals.
For the record, I have nothing against child porn filters, which was the original notion of this law apparently. My country's ISPs all have one. The difference is the police decide what goes on that list after they manually check the sites, there's no political agenda. And it's not even a block, it's a warning you can click through.
Point well made. Two years to find it within a known 140-square-kilometre search area. And they knew what to look for. And they only _think_ they found it.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that for our current tech to detect it, these alien probes would need to be pretty freakin' huge.
That's not really the question. The question would be more along the lines of: What are the odds they would've located signs of the landers, with no idea where to look or that there was anything on the entire planet worth looking for?
Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.
I wouldn't go as far as to say they're incompetent. I do think they're jumping to conclusions, and I do think it is just opinion repeated enough to become "fact". And I'm sure a lot of them have the same feeling, but don't want to mess up their careers by speaking against the current zeitgeist. A few _have_ tried. Pointing out fallacies in the man made global warming theories is akin to walking around cursing people back in the middle ages. It only gets you burned at the stake, so why do it. When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science. That alone should make us all very suspicious.
There are too many instances of "we can't think of any other reason, so this must be man-made global warming", or "we have never seen this before, and we don't know what's causing it, but we're certain it's human emissions". I'm sorry, but you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause.
There are just too many variables. We can barely predict tomorrow's weather with any degree of accuracy (in some areas even that's stretching it), but we are supposed to believe any scientist that claims to have GLOBAL weather licked? I can't help but think those guys got an overdose of arrogance. Yes, they're very different things, but that's still faith, not science.
I've said this before: It doesn't matter. The proposed remedies (reduce emissions) are all good regardless. But the knee jerking hysterics-mongers are going about it all wrong. We're not solving a damn thing by politicians yapping about us all switching to electric cars. That's moving pollution, not reducing it. And the majority of "solutions" are of that sort, and only for political gain by playing on the armageddon fears of the population. Only now it's the elected officials spouting it, as opposed to the church or just the loon on the street corner.
Only a handful of (horrible) anti-virus packages cause any measurable slowdown these days. Not to mention that if you have a somewhat functional brain, you don't really need one.
I can't remember any time my anti-virus has detected something I didn't already know was there and had no intention of doing anything with but delete already. Since AV is free though, I don't see a reason not to run one.
The amount of money I spend on my WoW subscription in one month, I can burn through in the pub in about 2 hours.
I want to live where you live. A month worth of WoW buys me 1 drink or a maximum of 2 beer (more like 1.5). That's half an hour in the pub as opposed to two hours.
Agreed. I'm not a scientist and to me the answer is as obvious as it is to you.
It is clearly a case of aliens genetically modifying the species to easily identify individuals; we do the same in tagging wildlife.
My cable company has had a pilot customer running at 1Gbps since late last year.
I suspect the real news here is the technology Virgin Media are using, not the speed, but it's a bit hard to tell from the summary and I'm too lazy to do the editors' job for them.
Blimey, that did the trick. Thank you very much. I tried "everything" way back when. Either I missed this or it didn't work at that time.
Happy happy joy joy.
That was supposed to be "Media Player Classic", not mplayer. But I'm sure nobody intentionally misunderstood that... For sure..
You'll use it because it's better than its proprietary peers
It's also the only player I can't get to output properly to spdif on any computer I try it on. It's the _only_ player I can't get to output to spdif.
It did work on the versions a few years back, but those are useless with current codecs and containers so that's no help. For the past umpteen versions it has output nothing but looping sound. If anybody knows the magic to fix that I'd be thrilled. But Mplayer Classic HC and ffdshow does the job pretty well so it's not a big deal.