And that's precisely the reason why encryption is not used. It's not as if there are no perfectly viable solutions out there.
What people don't want to do is manage the trust - if they even have enough clue about encryption. You could tell them their data is encrypted in the cloud and they wouldn't know the difference between somebody else enrypting it for them and them doing it themselves.
If encryption and the necessary trust mangement was easy, people would be doing it already.
By the way. I'm not at all pleased with the new eBay design.
Not that it was ever better.
Seriously, just look at how many domain names they are using. There's ebay.com, ebaystatic.com, ebayrtm.com, ebayobjects.com. It's absurd. Every category is a separate subdomain. Click on an item and you get URLs that apparently substitute '=' with 'Z' and '&' with 'QQ'.
Just looking at the whole thing makes you sick if you have any sense of clean design.
Is it? How so?? HOSTS files do not use up CPU, or other forms of I/O, or even RAM, like DNS programs do locally...
Yeah, but noone argued that. The point is the sheer stupidity of abandoning the usefulness of DNS for a locally held hosts file. You even stir some totally uncalled-for phobia by referencing DNS poisoning or compromised DNS servers to make your "point".
But of course, if I were also too stupid to setup a local resolver, then I would come up with such crude ideas as well. Each according to his abilities I guess.
Just try to think about what happens when a server is using CNAMEs pointing to host names with multiple addresses for load-balancing reasons or changes addresses, how you are going to track that manually and how much time you waste doing that instead of spending _milliseconds_ to do it the right way.
I'm not even mentioning the time you spend defending this ridiculous ideas of yours and the lifetime you lose by boiling your blood because you are too stubborn to acknowledge your lack of technical understanding.
This is not one: www.slashdot.org, this is a host name. URLs contain host names. DNS is used to resolve host names, not URLs. I hope those details don't confuse you too much.
If you're replying, please keep it to personal attacks. Those are funny. You faking know-how, not so much.
After I told you how idiotic it is to use the hosts file for "blocking" you come back and tell me how to use it to "speed up" DNS? Are you living in the 60s or what?
Also, you don't resolve URLs. Go read up what a URL actually is.
Please, never reply to one of my posts again with your junk advice.
Yeah, but only if you leave out any hidden costs such as worrying about the confidentiality of your data or actuall data leakage. Cost is a stupid argument if you ignore parts of it.
And yes. If nobody knew it wasn't a security issue. What is it in If nobody knew that you don't understand? If some hacker knew != "If nobody knew".You could have what we Linux "fun-boys" called an algorithmic thinking to figure this out.
Yeah, well. You won the logic game. Congratulations.
Your statement just doesn't have any relevance to reality anymore.
It looks like someone is confusing demos to mean game demos or somesuch. Demos are supposed to make your jaw drop with four kilobytes, not demonstrate what future games might look like or show you good coding practices.
Of course they could have had some artist sit down, draw beautiful pictures, integrate voice, write it in a high-level language. But that's completely not the point.
Umm, so they're doing an image-based backup but apply huge amounts of logic to understand filesystems to achieve what is basically a file-based backup?
And all this just because you can't efficiently back up a running Windows system because of a myriad of open files and because you would trash the holy fragile registry?
Yeah, I can see why UNIX seems archaic to some. It's because all the stuff still works and hasn't had layers and layers of obscurity piled on top over the years*.
While 0 is a valid IP address and should work in a hosts file, dude, STOP ABUSING the hosts file like a clueless idiot! Seriously, 14MB of plain text that needs to be parsed for every lookup? That's the most retarded thing I've ever seen.
At those proportions, there are WAY more efficient methods. Think about it, a hosts file can only match fully-qualified host names. If you want to block a whole domain you waste enormous amounts of space because you have to specify each and every host. Following that, you should instantly realize that security doesn't work with blacklists, i.e. if you know that domain evil.invalid is hostile, you can't afford to miss some hosts below it. Otherwise, what's the point?
And anyways, diverting traffic to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 is changing semantics in so many ways. Suppose you start running a local HTTP server for testing purposes and all that traffic is suddenly hitting it. It's just wrong.
"Blocking" hosts by listing them in the hosts file is an evil evil evil ugly hack conceived by clueless idiots that can't manage to run a local proxy where you could block domains with simple regular expressions and only for protocols which need them blocked. Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains so you get a semantically correct (for your purpose) NXDOMAIN error.
If you weren't abusing it like that the whole 0 vs 0.0.0.0 issue would fly past you because noone ought to modify the hosts file anyway these days. That's what DNS is for.
Most attempts to make software easier to use fail because the developers try to wrap their minds around the "stupid" users instead of concentrating on the damn code and doing things properly.
If a system is so well designed that I can jump right into the middle of a startup script and instantly understand it without tracing obscure dependencies, then it's user-friendly for me. And I speculate that the cleaner the basis is, the easier it is to put a GUI on top of it without obscuring things.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's precisely the reason why encryption is not used. It's not as if there are no perfectly viable solutions out there.
What people don't want to do is manage the trust - if they even have enough clue about encryption. You could tell them their data is encrypted in the cloud and they wouldn't know the difference between somebody else enrypting it for them and them doing it themselves.
If encryption and the necessary trust mangement was easy, people would be doing it already.
Your stalking flatters me, APK.
Yes.
By the way. I'm not at all pleased with the new eBay design.
Not that it was ever better.
Seriously, just look at how many domain names they are using. There's ebay.com, ebaystatic.com, ebayrtm.com, ebayobjects.com. It's absurd. Every category is a separate subdomain. Click on an item and you get URLs that apparently substitute '=' with 'Z' and '&' with 'QQ'.
Just looking at the whole thing makes you sick if you have any sense of clean design.
Abusing semantics is not a fix, it's a workaround. To amateurs it may look the same because of equal outcome. It's not.
Is it? How so?? HOSTS files do not use up CPU, or other forms of I/O, or even RAM, like DNS programs do locally...
Yeah, but noone argued that. The point is the sheer stupidity of abandoning the usefulness of DNS for a locally held hosts file. You even stir some totally uncalled-for phobia by referencing DNS poisoning or compromised DNS servers to make your "point".
But of course, if I were also too stupid to setup a local resolver, then I would come up with such crude ideas as well. Each according to his abilities I guess.
Just try to think about what happens when a server is using CNAMEs pointing to host names with multiple addresses for load-balancing reasons or changes addresses, how you are going to track that manually and how much time you waste doing that instead of spending _milliseconds_ to do it the right way.
I'm not even mentioning the time you spend defending this ridiculous ideas of yours and the lifetime you lose by boiling your blood because you are too stubborn to acknowledge your lack of technical understanding.
And regarding URLs, this is one: http://www.slashdot.org/
This is not one: www.slashdot.org, this is a host name. URLs contain host names. DNS is used to resolve host names, not URLs. I hope those details don't confuse you too much.
If you're replying, please keep it to personal attacks. Those are funny. You faking know-how, not so much.
That's a load of crap.
After I told you how idiotic it is to use the hosts file for "blocking" you come back and tell me how to use it to "speed up" DNS? Are you living in the 60s or what?
Also, you don't resolve URLs. Go read up what a URL actually is.
Please, never reply to one of my posts again with your junk advice.
Yeah, but only if you leave out any hidden costs such as worrying about the confidentiality of your data or actuall data leakage. Cost is a stupid argument if you ignore parts of it.
Seriously, what's your point? That you cannot gain local privileges other than logging in? You are really really naive.
Yeah, because there never was a remote exploit in a non-root application. *rolls eyes*
And yes. If nobody knew it wasn't a security issue.
What is it in If nobody knew that you don't understand?
If some hacker knew != "If nobody knew".You could have what we Linux "fun-boys" called an algorithmic thinking to figure this out.
Yeah, well. You won the logic game. Congratulations.
Your statement just doesn't have any relevance to reality anymore.
So they take a headless server. What then? Their chance of getting to the machine are no higher than that of some random guy on the Internet, no?
They still need a username and a password. Setup a user that, when logged in, shuts down the system and give them that.
Have you ever seen how small micro SD cards are?
Care to elaborate what that's supposed to be?
Get off my lawn!
4K = 4KB = 4096 bytes. Always will be.
It looks like someone is confusing demos to mean game demos or somesuch. Demos are supposed to make your jaw drop with four kilobytes, not demonstrate what future games might look like or show you good coding practices.
Of course they could have had some artist sit down, draw beautiful pictures, integrate voice, write it in a high-level language. But that's completely not the point.
At which point you're back to spyware-infested.
Umm, so they're doing an image-based backup but apply huge amounts of logic to understand filesystems to achieve what is basically a file-based backup?
And all this just because you can't efficiently back up a running Windows system because of a myriad of open files and because you would trash the holy fragile registry?
Yeah, I can see why UNIX seems archaic to some. It's because all the stuff still works and hasn't had layers and layers of obscurity piled on top over the years*.
* Not talking about Linux :P
man nice
PS: That's no compliment, type it in a shell :P
While 0 is a valid IP address and should work in a hosts file, dude, STOP ABUSING the hosts file like a clueless idiot! Seriously, 14MB of plain text that needs to be parsed for every lookup? That's the most retarded thing I've ever seen.
At those proportions, there are WAY more efficient methods. Think about it, a hosts file can only match fully-qualified host names. If you want to block a whole domain you waste enormous amounts of space because you have to specify each and every host. Following that, you should instantly realize that security doesn't work with blacklists, i.e. if you know that domain evil.invalid is hostile, you can't afford to miss some hosts below it. Otherwise, what's the point?
And anyways, diverting traffic to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 is changing semantics in so many ways. Suppose you start running a local HTTP server for testing purposes and all that traffic is suddenly hitting it. It's just wrong.
"Blocking" hosts by listing them in the hosts file is an evil evil evil ugly hack conceived by clueless idiots that can't manage to run a local proxy where you could block domains with simple regular expressions and only for protocols which need them blocked. Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains so you get a semantically correct (for your purpose) NXDOMAIN error.
If you weren't abusing it like that the whole 0 vs 0.0.0.0 issue would fly past you because noone ought to modify the hosts file anyway these days. That's what DNS is for.
Where do you get your info from?
Neither running more than one copy nor spreading keypresses via software is forbidden.
Most attempts to make software easier to use fail because the developers try to wrap their minds around the "stupid" users instead of concentrating on the damn code and doing things properly.
If a system is so well designed that I can jump right into the middle of a startup script and instantly understand it without tracing obscure dependencies, then it's user-friendly for me. And I speculate that the cleaner the basis is, the easier it is to put a GUI on top of it without obscuring things.
See sig.
It can be automated. But that's forbidden.
That doesn't mean a guy playing 36 shamans is using forbidden automation.
I dont play WoW so I'm not sure of what exactly they do
See, your parent felt the need to voice his opinion without knowing about the subject.
Keywords: multiboxing, allowed
A better alternative would be automated transportation.
You mean like WoW flight points?
However, since games like world of warcraft are strongly against bots of any kind, it's not likely to come.
I'm confused.
19 inch box?
They didn't say how high.
In other news, progress on a space elevator has been confirmed. Curiously, it's 19 inch wide.