He is in charged of rape, because he didn't use a condom on a occasional sex. That is a crime in Sweden and is equivalent to rape. The girl don't even want any charge against him, but it is a public crime, so her opinion doesn't matter.
So this happen to thousand of people in Sweden and no charged are made... but he got charged and lot of work was put in to bring him to "justice"... why is he so special? Oh, right, he published things that powerful governments didn't like.
Ok, lets assume this is a valid charge... why do Swedish prosecutor don't agree to question him on another country or via the internet? Why they pressure so much for him to go to Sweden to be questioned. Assange didn't refuse to be questioned, he just want to do it out ot Sweden because he don't trust their motives. It is also known that the USA did pressure the Swedish government to arrest Assange... and a few months later, this charges show up.
So, he for sure is not perfect and for sure did much things that aren't right nor his ideas about women are all right... but this case is too uncommon and weird to blindly trust Swedish justice.
i'm referring to class A/class C as ip space allocation ranges (size), not as "static groups of IPs" (special ranges)
Check the https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf... , no place there they say that a class C starts in 192.0.0.0 and that Class A can only start in 10.0.0.0, they only talk in sizes
I know that some people consider that class A is only 10/8 and class C is 192.168.0.0/24, but i have no idea where they bring that, maybe they are confusing the classes with the private IPs as they are usually used as examples of one to another.
Anyway, for me, a class A network (/8) starting in any IP can have about 65025 (255*255) class C (/24) networks, right or wrong, this is the way i use it.:)
I agree with you, it is a risk, but of all browsers, what is the one you trust the most? What are the alternatives? You can not even now build chromium without a google build ID !!
Mozilla is not perfect, but is really trying to fix the major problems in the web, including the privacy problem. Could then do better? Yes!! but thank, the other browsers are more limited on what to do because they know that even small things can make many people change their loved for a browser and then slowly convince others.
Mozilla accepting this DRM is a way to limit what Apple, Google and MS want to do. Even if Adobe adds more stuff to their DRM plugin, it will only be used if Mozilla allows it. With Mozilla in the W3C group about DRM, it can talk, block, warn users about possible problems. No one wants again a web with different web standards and a "user" voice in the group is important... Mozilla is the closest you get for that. At least the browser code is open, people can fork it if Mozilla started to do "evil" things
Firefox tried to push open video formats, like webm, and refused to support H264... yet, after years of fighting they gave up, mostly because MS and Apple refused to support it to push their (patented group) H264 format. Only if google switched youtube to webm and stopped supporting H264 it would be possible to do something like that, but even if the webm was a google format, they never really pushed that change and H264 won this round.
Future video support is the new battleground. Yet W3C is set to accept DRM and firefox not supporting it would mean that important sites would either push the usage of other browsers (like netflix) or push the installation of broken plugins (like all the silverlght sites we have today) that may just exist in windows. Either way firefox would be lonely on this battle, as MS, Apple and Google all have interest in DRM video, so it would be a lost battle from the start. It is sad, but delivering video is only set to increase and big companies want to make money from it... even if the browser would not have any DRM, they would create "apps" to support it so that movie industry would allow online video streaming. It is a lost battle, since there is demand for it, not from the users, but from the content makers... and we all know they are stupid, they prefer having no market (and so piracy) than provide open access to their content, just look how music industry works with the internet and how long that battle is taking place
Firefox solution is to use a Adobe "plugin" that is very restricted on what it can do (read a stream, reply a stream), just to decode the DRM. This would allow the DRM validation that some companies require, allow one to disable this very easily and allow for future replacement of that closed "plugin" with any other open implementation (trying to push directly a open DRM "plugin" now could blacklist firefox if someone tried to remove the protection... later, with existent market share it would be harder to blacklist firefox)
So yes, no one wants DRM, not even Mozilla, but looking at the alternative (some other DRM support or protocol you can't control), at least Mozilla can have some control and impose limits by doing this and not sacrifice market share on a battle that would be lost anyway. Don't blame Mozilla on this one, blame MS, Apple and Google for teaming up pushing DRM, so much that W3C have also agreed to add a DRM standard.
1- there is also a agreement to not put weapons on space 2- Money! you would need a HUGE amount of fuel to put something that big on space, even if piece by piece... probably too expensive for any country. 3- physic laws:
if you fired those guns on space, you would start to move away from the target... so on each fire round you would need to correct the velocity and position, quickly wasting all your fuel
slackware is kick ass for a long time and have the same 1 full time developer since ever. but there is also a brigade of (part-time) hackers helping him behind the shadows
for small workloads (eg: home users), unity is good. Mate is also good for high workloads, with many windows open, openbox, fluxbox, awesome, dwm, ratpoison, etc are better KDE is not bad too, as it is very flexible and lighter today than gnome... Their major problem is that it still have that "not free enough!" or "it uses C++!!" shadow, that scared many to start gnome. Since then many things changed, but Redhat/fedora still run from it like hell and ubuntu always hide kubuntu from most people. Gnome shell, IMHO is trash, even worst because of the same model as sytemd ( "Take over everything, do it my way, don't care about what people say, they are all idiots anyway")
one more step so that MS can control what you can run on your computer...
You already have Boot loader signing, now you may block the non-whitelisted apps... (for sure MS signed apps are automatically allows) next is to require all apps to be signed to be executed (if not enabled with this)... Finally require all apps to be delivered by MS store (with the excuse to automatically sign all apps), or if you are big enough, setup your public store with expensive MS software and some CA like key from CA
- both support from MS and Oracle is sh*t our days... i know, i used then until a few months ago
I understand that "companies" will not care, they want someone to blame and pay the money they ask... but those are brainless companies. Companies that do really think on why and the costs see that it may be better to use something help or even pay for a "cloud" solution
-If you company business is doing @100+ million based on exchange, your company is doing it wrong, for sure!! Almost no companies are "email based" (eg: making money based on the email), even worst depending on something so hard to scale as exchange.
Lets face it, companies use exchange because is MS, because they have many tools and people trained on that and because they don't know anything help.
If a batch gave cpus that have some problem, disable that cpus and sell the silicon for the remaining working cpu. silicon is expensive, the build process is expensive, if you they didn't do this, all CPUs would be more expensive too
So a heavy multi-thread usage is close or even higher on AMD...
video encoding, is better to use GPU... and again, AMD APU is and faster than anything Intel sells... If you buy a real GPU, well, the cpu will not matter much
Is not the faster CPU, that is right, but is fast enough! Then you have the internal GPU, that will eat intel one alive. Taking out the hardcore gamers, the normal users (home users, casual gamers, office work, etc) will get a very good machine for a lower price. Everyone likes to have the most powerful rig of the neighborhood, but that is just ego talking, most people will not use it.
hardcore gamers will always choose top CPUs and GPUs and will pay huge amount of money to get then... but that doesn't mean that lower spec hardware is terrible worst, they are many time just a little slower for lot less money
what are you guys using that even see the difference between this CPUs? I use several computers with different CPUs (cores, speed and brands) and i see almost no difference at all. Most systems are idle, waiting for user input or HD access. Of course i'm ignoring video editing and some small set of very cpu hungry single thread apps, but most people don't use then anyway. Most people will see get better performance by buying a SSD, not cpu
I think this is just a matter of "who size is bigger", not real performance differences.
What i like in AMD cpus is they have all the features, not bullshit capped cpus like intel cpus, where they remove features from lower cpus to force you to buy higher (and much expensive) ones
Simple, don't use exchange!! don't try to fix the wrong problem!
If you choose a closed email server full of closed protocols, you will have problems finding tools that work with it! All the tools that can work with it will cost money and usually require yet another closed tool or service.
Use other things or pressure MS to support open protocols. if you don't do that, then you can't complain about application support.
If you really want to follow that path, set up a davmail server and use it (directly with SSL or via a vpn)
Again, exchange is broken and is not required... exchange people don't really know anything else and always complain that nothing can replace it... yet million of companies and people use other solutions and are happy. So yeah, exchange users/companies are "blind" inside a walled garden.
you can try privoxy as a proxy with tight control (whitelist/backlist, regexp by words, url, etc), if needed as a transparent proxy, so one can not change that. you can later screen the logs to see if anything more needs to be filtered (recommended ublocker or ghostery to also block ads and tracking, to help keep the logs cleaner) WoT (web of trust) firefox add-on as a generic blocker, as it block bad, dangerous or not child safe... is not perfect but no solution will completely filter all urls... having said that, if is very good, also protects adults:)
Chats and social network are the main dangers, so parental supervisions and teaching is always required Make then understand that the internet stores and copies everythings, so they should keep private things private and that they should always questions how much they should trust people that they don't know in flesh and blood.
you kids need to trust you enough to tell you about the problems and things they found... if they really want to workaround any filter, they will do it... i see friends kids using the dogs facebook login to hide things from parents, others connecting to the neighborhood network and many using the (unprotected) friends computer to do things that they can't do at home
?!?! what ??! those news reports don't know what they are talking about!!
firefox was not affected by this, it have it own certificate store and this software didn't installed any CA on it.
HTTP traffic from all browsers should be views and changed by this software, but HTTPS was only intercepted by the browsers that use the system certificate store
Re:Some ad networks are still HTTP-only
on
HTTP/2 Finalized
·
· Score: 1
AFAIK they will... but this will not be flagged as a valid https, the traffic will be encrypted but the browser will just act to the user as it was a plain http connection. This because the new https URL was delivered by plain http, without any kind of protection, so could faked. Browsers will only show the correct "https icons" when all (or at least the main) connections are directly valid https
And for the http/1.1 pipeline, it simple don't work... 90% of the sites can work with it, but others fail and fail badly... the page take forever to load, waiting for resources that were asked but never received. all browsers tried to enabled it and all had to revert it due to the (few but important) problems founds that are impossible to solve without a huge whitelist/blacklist of servers (impossible to really implement and a pain for all those important and old internal servers)
So the 2 major issues that http/2 want to solve are really the tls slow start and a working pipeline... By announcing http/2, a browser knows that this things do work and are safe to use, no more guessing games and workarounds for bad servers.
This is a evolution step, it still requires to work with http/1.1 designed sites. When sites are designed with http/2 in mind, it is time for the http/3, where more things could be changed (and deprecate http/1.1)
Is not perfect, but changing too many things leads to the ipv6 problem... is good, but people don't want to break things and so don't change anything.
how to you test a https currently with telnet? you don't, you use a tool (openssl s_client -connect ip:port), then you test like telnet
with http2, you will also have to use a tool to connect.. then you can do what ever you wan... (and by the way, chrome and firefox will only allow http2 with TLS, so even if it was plain text, you still would need to use openssl s_client to test )
Slashdot Mirror
do you know the story?
He is in charged of rape, because he didn't use a condom on a occasional sex. That is a crime in Sweden and is equivalent to rape. The girl don't even want any charge against him, but it is a public crime, so her opinion doesn't matter.
So this happen to thousand of people in Sweden and no charged are made... but he got charged and lot of work was put in to bring him to "justice"... why is he so special? Oh, right, he published things that powerful governments didn't like.
Ok, lets assume this is a valid charge... why do Swedish prosecutor don't agree to question him on another country or via the internet? Why they pressure so much for him to go to Sweden to be questioned. Assange didn't refuse to be questioned, he just want to do it out ot Sweden because he don't trust their motives. It is also known that the USA did pressure the Swedish government to arrest Assange... and a few months later, this charges show up.
So, he for sure is not perfect and for sure did much things that aren't right nor his ideas about women are all right... but this case is too uncommon and weird to blindly trust Swedish justice.
i'm referring to class A/class C as ip space allocation ranges (size), not as "static groups of IPs" (special ranges)
Check the https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf... , no place there they say that a class C starts in 192.0.0.0 and that Class A can only start in 10.0.0.0, they only talk in sizes
I know that some people consider that class A is only 10/8 and class C is 192.168.0.0/24, but i have no idea where they bring that, maybe they are confusing the classes with the private IPs as they are usually used as examples of one to another.
Anyway, for me, a class A network (/8) starting in any IP can have about 65025 (255*255) class C (/24) networks, right or wrong, this is the way i use it. :)
re-read the comment, i'm selling many class C from a big class A :D
if i sell half of the class A, i would be rich!!
I have several full class C (10.*.*.0/24) to sell, cheaper than the previous post!! don't wait, call now! :)
Because one will want (for sure!!!!111) operate windows from the watch!
He will start by saying that mechanical watches are a thing of the past and the future is in "windows watch"(tm)
:D
I agree with you, it is a risk, but of all browsers, what is the one you trust the most? What are the alternatives? You can not even now build chromium without a google build ID !!
Mozilla is not perfect, but is really trying to fix the major problems in the web, including the privacy problem. Could then do better? Yes!! but thank, the other browsers are more limited on what to do because they know that even small things can make many people change their loved for a browser and then slowly convince others.
Mozilla accepting this DRM is a way to limit what Apple, Google and MS want to do. Even if Adobe adds more stuff to their DRM plugin, it will only be used if Mozilla allows it. With Mozilla in the W3C group about DRM, it can talk, block, warn users about possible problems. No one wants again a web with different web standards and a "user" voice in the group is important... Mozilla is the closest you get for that. At least the browser code is open, people can fork it if Mozilla started to do "evil" things
Firefox tried to push open video formats, like webm, and refused to support H264... yet, after years of fighting they gave up, mostly because MS and Apple refused to support it to push their (patented group) H264 format. Only if google switched youtube to webm and stopped supporting H264 it would be possible to do something like that, but even if the webm was a google format, they never really pushed that change and H264 won this round.
Future video support is the new battleground. Yet W3C is set to accept DRM and firefox not supporting it would mean that important sites would either push the usage of other browsers (like netflix) or push the installation of broken plugins (like all the silverlght sites we have today) that may just exist in windows. Either way firefox would be lonely on this battle, as MS, Apple and Google all have interest in DRM video, so it would be a lost battle from the start. It is sad, but delivering video is only set to increase and big companies want to make money from it... even if the browser would not have any DRM, they would create "apps" to support it so that movie industry would allow online video streaming. It is a lost battle, since there is demand for it, not from the users, but from the content makers... and we all know they are stupid, they prefer having no market (and so piracy) than provide open access to their content, just look how music industry works with the internet and how long that battle is taking place
Firefox solution is to use a Adobe "plugin" that is very restricted on what it can do (read a stream, reply a stream), just to decode the DRM. This would allow the DRM validation that some companies require, allow one to disable this very easily and allow for future replacement of that closed "plugin" with any other open implementation (trying to push directly a open DRM "plugin" now could blacklist firefox if someone tried to remove the protection... later, with existent market share it would be harder to blacklist firefox)
So yes, no one wants DRM, not even Mozilla, but looking at the alternative (some other DRM support or protocol you can't control), at least Mozilla can have some control and impose limits by doing this and not sacrifice market share on a battle that would be lost anyway. Don't blame Mozilla on this one, blame MS, Apple and Google for teaming up pushing DRM, so much that W3C have also agreed to add a DRM standard.
no!
https://startpage.com!
Details, check the damn details!!
1- there is also a agreement to not put weapons on space
2- Money! you would need a HUGE amount of fuel to put something that big on space, even if piece by piece... probably too expensive for any country.
3- physic laws:
if you fired those guns on space, you would start to move away from the target... so on each fire round you would need to correct the velocity and position, quickly wasting all your fuel
So yes, damn details!! :)
Won?! no, i just checked... my slackware is still working fine here!!
slackware is kick ass for a long time and have the same 1 full time developer since ever.
but there is also a brigade of (part-time) hackers helping him behind the shadows
for small workloads (eg: home users), unity is good. Mate is also good ... Their major problem is that it still have that "not free enough!" or "it uses C++!!" shadow, that scared many to start gnome. Since then many things changed, but Redhat/fedora still run from it like hell and ubuntu always hide kubuntu from most people.
for high workloads, with many windows open, openbox, fluxbox, awesome, dwm, ratpoison, etc are better
KDE is not bad too, as it is very flexible and lighter today than gnome
Gnome shell, IMHO is trash, even worst because of the same model as sytemd ( "Take over everything, do it my way, don't care about what people say, they are all idiots anyway")
one more step so that MS can control what you can run on your computer...
You already have Boot loader signing, now you may block the non-whitelisted apps... (for sure MS signed apps are automatically allows)
next is to require all apps to be signed to be executed (if not enabled with this)...
Finally require all apps to be delivered by MS store (with the excuse to automatically sign all apps), or if you are big enough, setup your public store with expensive MS software and some CA like key from CA
I'm so glad i have stopped using windows
- both support from MS and Oracle is sh*t our days... i know, i used then until a few months ago
I understand that "companies" will not care, they want someone to blame and pay the money they ask... but those are brainless companies. Companies that do really think on why and the costs see that it may be better to use something help or even pay for a "cloud" solution
-If you company business is doing @100+ million based on exchange, your company is doing it wrong, for sure!!
Almost no companies are "email based" (eg: making money based on the email), even worst depending on something so hard to scale as exchange.
Lets face it, companies use exchange because is MS, because they have many tools and people trained on that and because they don't know anything help.
Every cpu company with several CPUs do that
If a batch gave cpus that have some problem, disable that cpus and sell the silicon for the remaining working cpu. silicon is expensive, the build process is expensive, if you they didn't do this, all CPUs would be more expensive too
So a heavy multi-thread usage is close or even higher on AMD...
video encoding, is better to use GPU... and again, AMD APU is and faster than anything Intel sells... If you buy a real GPU, well, the cpu will not matter much
A10 CPU is very good!
Is not the faster CPU, that is right, but is fast enough!
Then you have the internal GPU, that will eat intel one alive. Taking out the hardcore gamers, the normal users (home users, casual gamers, office work, etc) will get a very good machine for a lower price. Everyone likes to have the most powerful rig of the neighborhood, but that is just ego talking, most people will not use it.
hardcore gamers will always choose top CPUs and GPUs and will pay huge amount of money to get then... but that doesn't mean that lower spec hardware is terrible worst, they are many time just a little slower for lot less money
what are you guys using that even see the difference between this CPUs? I use several computers with different CPUs (cores, speed and brands) and i see almost no difference at all. Most systems are idle, waiting for user input or HD access. Of course i'm ignoring video editing and some small set of very cpu hungry single thread apps, but most people don't use then anyway. Most people will see get better performance by buying a SSD, not cpu
I think this is just a matter of "who size is bigger", not real performance differences.
What i like in AMD cpus is they have all the features, not bullshit capped cpus like intel cpus, where they remove features from lower cpus to force you to buy higher (and much expensive) ones
Simple, don't use exchange!! don't try to fix the wrong problem!
If you choose a closed email server full of closed protocols, you will have problems finding tools that work with it! All the tools that can work with it will cost money and usually require yet another closed tool or service.
Use other things or pressure MS to support open protocols. if you don't do that, then you can't complain about application support.
If you really want to follow that path, set up a davmail server and use it (directly with SSL or via a vpn)
Again, exchange is broken and is not required... exchange people don't really know anything else and always complain that nothing can replace it... yet million of companies and people use other solutions and are happy. So yeah, exchange users/companies are "blind" inside a walled garden.
you can try privoxy as a proxy with tight control (whitelist/backlist, regexp by words, url, etc), if needed as a transparent proxy, so one can not change that. you can later screen the logs to see if anything more needs to be filtered (recommended ublocker or ghostery to also block ads and tracking, to help keep the logs cleaner) :)
WoT (web of trust) firefox add-on as a generic blocker, as it block bad, dangerous or not child safe... is not perfect but no solution will completely filter all urls... having said that, if is very good, also protects adults
Chats and social network are the main dangers, so parental supervisions and teaching is always required
Make then understand that the internet stores and copies everythings, so they should keep private things private and that they should always questions how much they should trust people that they don't know in flesh and blood.
you kids need to trust you enough to tell you about the problems and things they found... if they really want to workaround any filter, they will do it...
i see friends kids using the dogs facebook login to hide things from parents, others connecting to the neighborhood network and many using the (unprotected) friends computer to do things that they can't do at home
?!?! what ??! those news reports don't know what they are talking about!!
firefox was not affected by this, it have it own certificate store and this software didn't installed any CA on it.
HTTP traffic from all browsers should be views and changed by this software, but HTTPS was only intercepted by the browsers that use the system certificate store
AFAIK they will... but this will not be flagged as a valid https, the traffic will be encrypted but the browser will just act to the user as it was a plain http connection. This because the new https URL was delivered by plain http, without any kind of protection, so could faked. Browsers will only show the correct "https icons" when all (or at least the main) connections are directly valid https
And for the http/1.1 pipeline, it simple don't work... 90% of the sites can work with it, but others fail and fail badly... the page take forever to load, waiting for resources that were asked but never received. all browsers tried to enabled it and all had to revert it due to the (few but important) problems founds that are impossible to solve without a huge whitelist/blacklist of servers (impossible to really implement and a pain for all those important and old internal servers)
So the 2 major issues that http/2 want to solve are really the tls slow start and a working pipeline... By announcing http/2, a browser knows that this things do work and are safe to use, no more guessing games and workarounds for bad servers.
This is a evolution step, it still requires to work with http/1.1 designed sites.
When sites are designed with http/2 in mind, it is time for the http/3, where more things could be changed (and deprecate http/1.1)
Is not perfect, but changing too many things leads to the ipv6 problem... is good, but people don't want to break things and so don't change anything.
how to you test a https currently with telnet? you don't, you use a tool (openssl s_client -connect ip:port), then you test like telnet
with http2, you will also have to use a tool to connect.. then you can do what ever you wan...
(and by the way, chrome and firefox will only allow http2 with TLS, so even if it was plain text, you still would need to use openssl s_client to test )