The real problem is the browser makers do not care about security. They only care about the appearance of security.
For example, browsers don't do the SSH style thing where they warn you if the cert changes for a previously recognized site.
Go look at all the built-in CA certs in your browser sometime. Count them if you can.
How sure are you that none of the CAs there won't be tricked/bribed into signing a cert for *.mybank.com ? Who has audited them?
All it takes is just one CA, and AFAIK, none of the popular browsers will warn you that the cert for mybank.com has changed.
In fact, you might be safer if you removed all the CA certs from your browser, and just got your browser to recognize certs from the few https sites that you actually use, on a per cert basis rather than per CA basis.
Then when someone tries to trick you to going to https://www.mybank.com|.cgi-bin.co/ you will get a prompt for the https cert, and then you might notice something strange going on...
Which do you think is a bigger threat to your security? Your bank server using the same ssl cert for years, or someone pulling a cert swap or MITM or XSS trick on you?
But guess what, your bank probably has to renew their cert every year or so and pay $$$ to do so. Is that really for security reasons? Maybe for the CA's financial security, but I doubt it's for yours or the bank's.
The browser makers fill their browsers with certs from dozens of companies. They don't blacklist companies that have been known to screw up and do dubious stuff (like issuing Microsoft certs to people who aren't microsoft, and do naughty DNS stuff).
Seriously though, what makes it expensive and complicated is the DRM and "flow of money control". Because you have to make sure everyone gets their cut, and decide what is a fair cut for the near infinite combinations you are proposing to provide, and ensure that stuff is not printed for free that shouldn't be etc etc. Think of all the logging, auditing, checking, protocols etc.
It's just like the difference between a shop providing you "free" internet access as long as you buy their expensive coffee and a hotel charging you for internet access. Once you start charging, things get more complicated. The hotel needs a system to make sure that you can't get access unless you agree to pay, and then handle payment and all sorts of options (like do you still get access in the lobby after you checkout).
Seems easier to make money from those photo kiosks/booth in malls.
"People gotta eat so that means they are going to be serving somebody"
Fine, they can keep serving their advertisers.
But why then the talk of their impending doom? Seems that serving their advertises might not keep putting food on the table for most of them.
Maybe if advertisers join together and create a fund for "better media" rather than focus on "slave/whore media", more people would bother buying newspapers/etc and thus accidentally read their ads from time to time?
Or is it nobody cares about quality anyway? They just want it free? I figure out of 6 billion people in the world, some must be willing and able to pay for quality. Are those still so few in number that it makes no business sense?
"He - or she - may not as effective in telling the story "
_May_. But in the real world?
How many of these "sent reporters" are really good enough for people to bother paying $$$ for?
So far it seems most of them are pretty crap. No great loss I say.
As for the reporters in Russia getting murdered. Doesn't that imply they were getting a bit too effective?;)
You think some foreigner going to Russia won't get murdered if they do the same thing? Would they even be able to do the same thing? They are unlikely to have as many contacts. How many people would risk their necks to contact someone who just came in on a plane yesterday. Or even know that person is around to contact? If they can establish email contact, why have the guy on a plane?
"It is really quite naive to think that the native reporter is free of corporate or political or religious influence".
Isn't that a strawman argument? Who claimed that native reporters are free of bias?
Seems that either way we are going to get biased reports. So why pay extra? How many of those reporters have shown they add significant value?
Most of them seem to interview 100 people and pick the replies/quotes that suit their corporate/political/personal agenda.
You know the usual: <native first name>, <age>, <quote that suits agenda>.
And guess what happens to the "unprintable" responses?
In contrast if I check 10 different blogs, if 8 of them say similar stuff, and 2 say something different, that's better "sampling".
Yeah, it's laughable that most libertarians seem to think "big Gov" = bad, and "small Gov" = good.
Have they never heard of the concept called "quality not quantity"?
It's the quality of the government that counts, not the quantity. It's the quality of the laws that count not the quantity.
I claim there would be very little difference to the governed between having: a) A small and corrupt government that is in league with big and corrupt corporations. vs b) A big and corrupt government
You will need someone around to do the big stuff. So if you have a small government, they would get big organizations/companies/cooperatives to do the big stuff.
If your small government is corrupt, too bad for you.
Secondly, if people insist on electing leaders seemingly based on how much money those leaders get from corporations, and not based on how suitable the leaders really are, then guess where the problem really is.
I keep hearing people complaining that the corporations are giving the politicians money etc etc. Well, the last I checked, if your elections aren't badly diebolded, you don't have to vote for those politicians (there were more than 2 candidates in many elections).
If people keep voting for politicians who get the most donations from corporations, then that is what they want. And Democracy is working as well as it can.
I'm saying that even if a government has consent from the governed it does not automatically make the government just.
And much of lecture 1 was about consent (don't get me wrong consent is good ).
As for your remarks: 1) "They cannot make laws to restrict our rights" 2) "It is meant to promote local law at the city level" 3) "Creating laws at the Federal level only serves to violate this idea."
I don't get that reasoning.
Are you saying local governments are not subject to the constitution but Federal governments are?
If they are both governments and both subject to the Constitution, I don't see how 1) results in 2). I don't see how the constitution is "meant to promote local law at the city level" as you claim.
As for the lecture's claim about the Constitution restricting the Government:
Maybe a Government cannot restrict your rights, but AFAIK a Government can and does restrict what you can do, and can also force you to do stuff.
For instance the 16th amendment to the Constitution gives the Government power to take part of your income. So I guess you don't have a right to keep all of your income, at least not from the Congress.
Also it seems both Local or Federal governments don't allow you to "bear arms" while you're in prison. But that's against the Second Amendment correct? Do you lose your constitutional rights when you go to prison[1]?
[1] Ex-felons in many states of the USA seem to lose voting rights even after they serve their time, not just in prison.
But the 1st lecture is based on an incorrect premise. So I'm not sure if I should waste my time on the other lectures.
The statement "Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." is incorrect. I don't care whether it was Thomas Jefferson who said it or not. I say he's wrong.
Governments do not get their just power from whether they have consent or not.
Governments that are just, _serve_ the people they govern (and serve them well I hope).
After all, it is possible (though hopefully unlikely) that an unjust government could have consent of the governed. Especially a devious and dishonest government.
People never consented to being born into a world and to be governed by the laws of physics or Man or "Daddy". Daddy got his just power to punish and restrict you not through your consent, but because he is _serving_ you.
You're going to end up with government and laws anyway, wherever you go (unless you're alone on some deserted island). Government and laws emerge once you have more than a few people living together. Whether people consent to them emerging or not is pretty much irrelevant.
What people should do is work towards getting governments and laws that better serve the people.
The US people are lucky they live in a democracy. If they really do not like any of the candidates, they can themselves be candidates. If nobody better than the candidates can or wishes to serve, then you've got the best candidates. As long as the election is not rigged, the resulting Government is a reflection of the people's will. Yes it's a distorted reflection, but keep working to improve it (and don't forget to try to working to improve the people as well - no point having a perfect reflection of an ugly image).
Lastly, on the Constitution only restricting the government (and not the people). If that's such a wonderful thing according to the lecture, then wouldn't you prefer strong governments, and not big strong corporations - since corporations aren't restricted by the constitution.;).
Seriously though, as I've said what you want is a government that serves the people. Whether it is big or small is irrelevant. Don't get distracted from the important stuff.
But netbook was indeed a unique enough term (given the usual trademarks - just add capitalization like NetBook etc).
Now you know why trademark owners have to go about suing or threatening to sue people who use their trademarks. If they don't, a few years later it becomes a generic term and people can claim you abandoned it.
To me this is a borderline case. So good luck to the Judge and court:).
But people are often better at copying or mimicking than understanding static documentation and then reproducing the original actions or steps.
So often adding good videos can help explain things better.
For example, if you are documenting how to make a cheesecake. Just having the recipe in text and pics doesn't tell you everything.
You can state how fast the mixer should spin in rpms at different stages of the recipe, but there are so many details, that if you write down every detail in text, people either can't understand the whole thing, or will give up reading it.
Once they watch the video, they have an idea of how "fast" it should look, how the mixer would sound, how the mix should look at each stage.
Then: 1) It's easier to do the "hands on" training. 2) At least some might notice when the mix doesn't look or flow "right", and go get help to fix it.
To get people to understand and do things properly you might need stuff like: Text+pic docs Flowcharts Checklists Videos Hands on training Apprenticeship
Just look at the number of people having problems with Creative's stuff.
Bad drivers. Bad hardware. Annoying/Bad software.
For example, we've a SB Live 24 (USB) where if you press the mute on the device, the mute works, but to unmute you have to reset the whole thing! And the recording volume is messed up. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I don't have many complaints about the built-in Realtek or Via Audio.
Then there was that friend who bought one of those audigy or extigy or whatever crap for his laptop, and had tons of problems with it - it never really worked..
When your audio products are often CRAPPIER than integrated audio, you are killing yourself more than someone else killing you.
It seems as if that short bit of Charlick Way and Sampsonia Street was taken at a different time of the day from the other streets.
Go down federal street and you'll see it's sunny with clear skies (and no battle) till it passes Sampsonia Street, then it becomes wet and cloudy (with the battle) then in the next shot it's back to sunny (and not battle) again. Similarly for Charlick Way.
Maybe they somehow missed that bit in an earlier pass and came back later when coincidentally a battle started just as they passed...:)
In terms of "attack" they're the same thing as facial recognition - they compare pictures of the iris.
They are more unique than faces though, so they are useful for keeping your evil twin out, from places that are protected by BOTH an iris scanner AND a guard (or two) stationed there to shoot you if you start doing stuff like waving a high res photo in front of the scanner:).
In contrast, if you have a twin/clone, that twin might be able to get in as you.
That's different because if the ID is digitally signed, the person challenging you can compare the included photo with your face, and verify that the ID is not tampered with by checking the signature.
If the ID is not digitally signed, well, hopefully it's hard enough to forge;).
Basically the way I'd do it is to have a smartcard digital info of your photos and other details, and they form a cert that is digitally signed by a certificate authority.
A guard reads the data off and then looks at the screen, and looks at your face, and if everything matches and the signature is good, and your ID has not been revoked (checked from a revocation list that is kept reasonably up to date), you are good to go.
Slashdot Mirror
You should see the amazing stuff that happens when both the government and private sector work together.
Oh wait, I think most of us have already.
The real problem is the browser makers do not care about security. They only care about the appearance of security.
For example, browsers don't do the SSH style thing where they warn you if the cert changes for a previously recognized site.
Go look at all the built-in CA certs in your browser sometime. Count them if you can.
How sure are you that none of the CAs there won't be tricked/bribed into signing a cert for *.mybank.com ? Who has audited them?
All it takes is just one CA, and AFAIK, none of the popular browsers will warn you that the cert for mybank.com has changed.
In fact, you might be safer if you removed all the CA certs from your browser, and just got your browser to recognize certs from the few https sites that you actually use, on a per cert basis rather than per CA basis.
Then when someone tries to trick you to going to https://www.mybank.com|.cgi-bin.co/ you will get a prompt for the https cert, and then you might notice something strange going on...
Which do you think is a bigger threat to your security? Your bank server using the same ssl cert for years, or someone pulling a cert swap or MITM or XSS trick on you?
But guess what, your bank probably has to renew their cert every year or so and pay $$$ to do so. Is that really for security reasons? Maybe for the CA's financial security, but I doubt it's for yours or the bank's.
The browser makers fill their browsers with certs from dozens of companies. They don't blacklist companies that have been known to screw up and do dubious stuff (like issuing Microsoft certs to people who aren't microsoft, and do naughty DNS stuff).
It's all just a show to make the sheep feel safe.
Microsoft kiosks might supply you a free chair? ;)
Seriously though, what makes it expensive and complicated is the DRM and "flow of money control". Because you have to make sure everyone gets their cut, and decide what is a fair cut for the near infinite combinations you are proposing to provide, and ensure that stuff is not printed for free that shouldn't be etc etc. Think of all the logging, auditing, checking, protocols etc.
It's just like the difference between a shop providing you "free" internet access as long as you buy their expensive coffee and a hotel charging you for internet access. Once you start charging, things get more complicated. The hotel needs a system to make sure that you can't get access unless you agree to pay, and then handle payment and all sorts of options (like do you still get access in the lobby after you checkout).
Seems easier to make money from those photo kiosks/booth in malls.
e.g. http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/Photo_Sticker_Machine.html
With results like:
http://www.roler.cc/purikura.html :)
"People gotta eat so that means they are going to be serving somebody"
Fine, they can keep serving their advertisers.
But why then the talk of their impending doom? Seems that serving their advertises might not keep putting food on the table for most of them.
Maybe if advertisers join together and create a fund for "better media" rather than focus on "slave/whore media", more people would bother buying newspapers/etc and thus accidentally read their ads from time to time?
Or is it nobody cares about quality anyway? They just want it free? I figure out of 6 billion people in the world, some must be willing and able to pay for quality. Are those still so few in number that it makes no business sense?
"He - or she - may not as effective in telling the story "
;)
_May_. But in the real world?
How many of these "sent reporters" are really good enough for people to bother paying $$$ for?
So far it seems most of them are pretty crap. No great loss I say.
As for the reporters in Russia getting murdered. Doesn't that imply they were getting a bit too effective?
You think some foreigner going to Russia won't get murdered if they do the same thing? Would they even be able to do the same thing? They are unlikely to have as many contacts. How many people would risk their necks to contact someone who just came in on a plane yesterday. Or even know that person is around to contact? If they can establish email contact, why have the guy on a plane?
"It is really quite naive to think that the native reporter is free of corporate or political or religious influence".
Isn't that a strawman argument? Who claimed that native reporters are free of bias?
Seems that either way we are going to get biased reports. So why pay extra? How many of those reporters have shown they add significant value?
Most of them seem to interview 100 people and pick the replies/quotes that suit their corporate/political/personal agenda.
You know the usual: <native first name>, <age>, <quote that suits agenda>.
And guess what happens to the "unprintable" responses?
In contrast if I check 10 different blogs, if 8 of them say similar stuff, and 2 say something different, that's better "sampling".
Sometimes it makes my stomach turn.
This is Slashdot. News for Nerds etc. Most readers should be able to use the filtering.
In the past, I believe many of us filtered out JonKatz.
Just because a vocal minority complain about kdawson doesn't mean the rest care that much.
Cisco update policy? Isn't that called Juniper or Huawei?
Cisco used to be the best option (they weren't that great in product terms, but everyone else was worse, and Cisco had good service and support).
They're getting squeezed from both the top and bottom.
Uh, but why does Sweden need those laws? Because the USA says so?
Where is the proof that people copying stuff is hurting Sweden?
Maybe you should tell the relevant Swedish people thinking about those laws that Sweden is not a state of the USA.
Yeah, it's laughable that most libertarians seem to think "big Gov" = bad, and "small Gov" = good.
Have they never heard of the concept called "quality not quantity"?
It's the quality of the government that counts, not the quantity.
It's the quality of the laws that count not the quantity.
I claim there would be very little difference to the governed between having:
a) A small and corrupt government that is in league with big and corrupt corporations.
vs
b) A big and corrupt government
You will need someone around to do the big stuff. So if you have a small government, they would get big organizations/companies/cooperatives to do the big stuff.
If your small government is corrupt, too bad for you.
Secondly, if people insist on electing leaders seemingly based on how much money those leaders get from corporations, and not based on how suitable the leaders really are, then guess where the problem really is.
I keep hearing people complaining that the corporations are giving the politicians money etc etc. Well, the last I checked, if your elections aren't badly diebolded, you don't have to vote for those politicians (there were more than 2 candidates in many elections).
If people keep voting for politicians who get the most donations from corporations, then that is what they want. And Democracy is working as well as it can.
I'm saying that even if a government has consent from the governed it does not automatically make the government just.
And much of lecture 1 was about consent (don't get me wrong consent is good ).
As for your remarks:
1) "They cannot make laws to restrict our rights"
2) "It is meant to promote local law at the city level"
3) "Creating laws at the Federal level only serves to violate this idea."
I don't get that reasoning.
Are you saying local governments are not subject to the constitution but Federal governments are?
If they are both governments and both subject to the Constitution, I don't see how 1) results in 2). I don't see how the constitution is "meant to promote local law at the city level" as you claim.
As for the lecture's claim about the Constitution restricting the Government:
Maybe a Government cannot restrict your rights, but AFAIK a Government can and does restrict what you can do, and can also force you to do stuff.
For instance the 16th amendment to the Constitution gives the Government power to take part of your income. So I guess you don't have a right to keep all of your income, at least not from the Congress.
Also it seems both Local or Federal governments don't allow you to "bear arms" while you're in prison. But that's against the Second Amendment correct? Do you lose your constitutional rights when you go to prison[1]?
[1] Ex-felons in many states of the USA seem to lose voting rights even after they serve their time, not just in prison.
I played the demo, got bored halfway or so. I let some kid play it and he seemed to enjoy it. It's a good game I suppose.
The last game I played recently? Quakeworld Custom Team Fortress - in coop mode.
Have you watched "Executive Decision" yet?
But the 1st lecture is based on an incorrect premise. So I'm not sure if I should waste my time on the other lectures.
;).
The statement "Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." is incorrect. I don't care whether it was Thomas Jefferson who said it or not. I say he's wrong.
Governments do not get their just power from whether they have consent or not.
Governments that are just, _serve_ the people they govern (and serve them well I hope).
After all, it is possible (though hopefully unlikely) that an unjust government could have consent of the governed. Especially a devious and dishonest government.
People never consented to being born into a world and to be governed by the laws of physics or Man or "Daddy". Daddy got his just power to punish and restrict you not through your consent, but because he is _serving_ you.
You're going to end up with government and laws anyway, wherever you go (unless you're alone on some deserted island). Government and laws emerge once you have more than a few people living together. Whether people consent to them emerging or not is pretty much irrelevant.
What people should do is work towards getting governments and laws that better serve the people.
The US people are lucky they live in a democracy. If they really do not like any of the candidates, they can themselves be candidates. If nobody better than the candidates can or wishes to serve, then you've got the best candidates. As long as the election is not rigged, the resulting Government is a reflection of the people's will. Yes it's a distorted reflection, but keep working to improve it (and don't forget to try to working to improve the people as well - no point having a perfect reflection of an ugly image).
Lastly, on the Constitution only restricting the government (and not the people). If that's such a wonderful thing according to the lecture, then wouldn't you prefer strong governments, and not big strong corporations - since corporations aren't restricted by the constitution.
Seriously though, as I've said what you want is a government that serves the people. Whether it is big or small is irrelevant. Don't get distracted from the important stuff.
Yeah it'll be nice to be able to accurately and very precisely deliver 10 MW to targets in a hostile area.
:).
Even if it's only for a minute or so and there are no sharks involved, I'm sure the military will still find a use for it
But netbook was indeed a unique enough term (given the usual trademarks - just add capitalization like NetBook etc).
:).
Now you know why trademark owners have to go about suing or threatening to sue people who use their trademarks. If they don't, a few years later it becomes a generic term and people can claim you abandoned it.
To me this is a borderline case. So good luck to the Judge and court
pic+text documentation of procedures is good.
But people are often better at copying or mimicking than understanding static documentation and then reproducing the original actions or steps.
So often adding good videos can help explain things better.
For example, if you are documenting how to make a cheesecake. Just having the recipe in text and pics doesn't tell you everything.
You can state how fast the mixer should spin in rpms at different stages of the recipe, but there are so many details, that if you write down every detail in text, people either can't understand the whole thing, or will give up reading it.
Once they watch the video, they have an idea of how "fast" it should look, how the mixer would sound, how the mix should look at each stage.
Then:
1) It's easier to do the "hands on" training.
2) At least some might notice when the mix doesn't look or flow "right", and go get help to fix it.
To get people to understand and do things properly you might need stuff like:
Text+pic docs
Flowcharts
Checklists
Videos
Hands on training
Apprenticeship
Uh don't flash. Check the local laws first, and possibly the laws of wherever you might want to travel to in the future.
Street theatre sounds more creative.
Actually, Creative are snuffing themselves out.
Just look at the number of people having problems with Creative's stuff.
Bad drivers. Bad hardware. Annoying/Bad software.
For example, we've a SB Live 24 (USB) where if you press the mute on the device, the mute works, but to unmute you have to reset the whole thing! And the recording volume is messed up. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I don't have many complaints about the built-in Realtek or Via Audio.
Then there was that friend who bought one of those audigy or extigy or whatever crap for his laptop, and had tons of problems with it - it never really worked..
When your audio products are often CRAPPIER than integrated audio, you are killing yourself more than someone else killing you.
"If you mean as an actual product someone would intentionally seek out"
:(.
To be honest, in many cases I'd actually pick the intel integrated GPU over say the Nvidia 8400.
Because in recent times, Nvidia has had a higher than normal failure rate with a whole bunch of their GPUs.
While the Intel GPUs are crap in performance terms, and have 3D rendering bugs, they appear to be very reliable in hardware terms.
Whereas I've had Nvidia GPUs dying on me personally (not just reports from other people).
Thus if you don't give a damn about 3D stuff at all, the Intel GPU is more likely to be a "no fuss" option.
I bought a Gigabyte 9800GT, price:performance is ok, but the fan is already making some noise, and it's not even a year old
Was that staged?
:)
It seems as if that short bit of Charlick Way and Sampsonia Street was taken at a different time of the day from the other streets.
Go down federal street and you'll see it's sunny with clear skies (and no battle) till it passes Sampsonia Street, then it becomes wet and cloudy (with the battle) then in the next shot it's back to sunny (and not battle) again. Similarly for Charlick Way.
Maybe they somehow missed that bit in an earlier pass and came back later when coincidentally a battle started just as they passed...
Question: Can I take lots of pictures of people in public, arrange them, put them on a website and then collect ad revenue?
Iris scans aren't that safe.
:).
In terms of "attack" they're the same thing as facial recognition - they compare pictures of the iris.
They are more unique than faces though, so they are useful for keeping your evil twin out, from places that are protected by BOTH an iris scanner AND a guard (or two) stationed there to shoot you if you start doing stuff like waving a high res photo in front of the scanner
In contrast, if you have a twin/clone, that twin might be able to get in as you.
That's different because if the ID is digitally signed, the person challenging you can compare the included photo with your face, and verify that the ID is not tampered with by checking the signature.
;).
If the ID is not digitally signed, well, hopefully it's hard enough to forge
Basically the way I'd do it is to have a smartcard digital info of your photos and other details, and they form a cert that is digitally signed by a certificate authority.
A guard reads the data off and then looks at the screen, and looks at your face, and if everything matches and the signature is good, and your ID has not been revoked (checked from a revocation list that is kept reasonably up to date), you are good to go.
Yes I am, but hopefully I'll improve as time goes by :).