Takes me a while to find sandpaper someone stashed somewhere years ago, or go out and buy it. Whereas when I send my car for repair I can just tell them "By the way, change the wipers for me, thanks!".
What I would want is a more permanent sort of rainx coating that's compatible with wipers.
No matter what you will need wipers to physically move the "big" stuff rapidly. While water will roll off a water repellent screen, if there's a big splash of water, wipers can remove it faster than it rolls off or gets blown off.
And oh yeah, I also want better wipers. Some are so squeaky, and some quickly "dry up and harden" and stop being effective.
1) She could just write it down somewhere and keep it reasonably safe. 2) Why can't she even remember a password at 7?
I don't think one should assume that she really can't do it.
Maybe it's hard, but best to start learning to learn stuff whilst you are young. If you leave it till later, the brain just isn't as adaptable.
When I was about 8 I was teaching myself how to program an Apple II clone in 6502 machine code from a cloned manual. My brother has said that he's a bit disappointed with me - given I haven't really achieved much in the end. Oh well...
Regarding government interception, GSM encryption is only from phone to station. At the Telco it's plaintext. So govs can (and probably do) listen to GSM phone calls. Should be common knowledge amongst telco people.
So GSM crypto even if it was uncrackable is not very helpful if you're really trying to hide your comms.
Someone I knew once claimed to have extra crypto on his GSM phone so that he could talk "securely" to other people similarly equipped.
I suggest that your proposal means more pain for the customers till they can find substitutes.
Whereas the expiring after 10 years= Fewer entities might be interested in producing stuff since they have to compete against their older stuff. You could say customers get some pain due to less stuff being available, but I don't think it's as clear in this case that there is likely to be widespread pain.
For example: if copyright expired after 10 years, Microsoft would probably have not released something as crap as Vista - people would just keep using Win2K. You could argue that Microsoft would not have released Windows in the first place. But if Microsoft didn't do that maybe Apple would have taken the entire market, with clones coming in 10 years later.
Whereas if cost increased exponentially, Microsoft would have released crap like Vista, and made Win2K and XP more and more expensive. At the right level of pain, customers won't shift away.
You might say "Who will make stuff if people keep coping you?", in China "everyone" copies each other, and they still keep making stuff. You just have to keep making better stuff or cheaper stuff.
Ss for the starving artists - while anecdote != statistic a chinese singer made more money in China singing for company promos/ads etc, than in Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7251211.stm
She still prefers Europe because she believes in Europe they're actually a fan of her music, whereas in China they're just a fan of her looks:).
Right now, prosecutors can't choose to use the various _theft_ laws to get file sharers even if they wanted to, because the Courts would throw the cases out - copying isn't theft.
That's why they created Copyright laws.
In sane countries the distinction will remain.
But maybe in your country the distinction will go away.
Simple: if it was theft they wouldn't need copyright law or DMCA to prosecute file sharing etc, they _could_ choose to use the various laws covering theft for that. Not saying they would but they could.
Of course, if they convince enough people and the courts that it's theft, then legally speaking it'll be theft, BUT that hasn't happened yet, so meanwhile, the rest of us are going to keep saying its not theft:).
What's closer to theft is the Corporations convincing the government(s) to _retroactively_ take stuff out of the public domain and make it theirs.
When that was done we lost a lot of access/use of those stuff, stuff that we used to have the right to use freely.
What filesharing does is it makes the Corporations lose a lot of access to our money. But the last I checked, they didn't have an automatic right to our money.
"It's actually more complicated to impossible to write a self recrypting program in any high level language."
I think in theory that should be easier to do in Lisp than ASM/machine code;). Plus you wouldn't trigger the Data Execution Prevention/NX thingy if you use a Lisp interpreter.
There's also a lot you can do with a few lines of perl, given the very powerful built-in libraries on most platforms that bundle it.
I think you could say similar things about python.
Yes it was never designed for that. But I'm saying the design was crap, and still is crap. In other words WiFi is defective by design.
I don't expect WiFi to provide VPN. It's just not nice to get broken stuff when it could have been avoided.
Back when WiFi was first starting out the technology was there (SSL was already around, they could have just copied the ideas), but the WiFi bunch gave us crap instead. To compound the problem they kept rolling out broken stuff to fix broken stuff.
Certificates do not have to be linked to domain names or SSID.
I could create a cert with CN=TheLink and get it signed by a mutually trusted party, and it has nothing to do with DNS.
All you need to know is: 1) They are valid. 2) They are for the entity you expect.
So whether they match the SSID or not is not that important.
The web browser and CA people have tried to make it easier for users to do 1) and 2) by linking it to DNS, and bundling CA certificates.
Something similar could be done for WiFi - the CA certs are probably already usable by nonbrowser apps in Windows.
What is needed is a way for a site (providing the access) to claim they are X, and for a user to be warned if the claim is not verifiable. This does not require DNS.
If people really want stuff like starbucks.wifi appearing in their WiFi control UIs where the SSID stuff normally appears then protocols and standards would have to be extended or created (since it wasn't done right from the start ).
User sees a list of wireless networks Tells client to connect to one. Client connects to an AP. AP claims- "I'm starbucks.wifi, here's my cert with CN=starbucks.wifi". If client is expecting starbucks.wifi and the cert is signed by a acceptable party then client proceeds. Then depending on the policy the user gets prompted with a choice, or error, or the connection is not allowed.
It's not trivial to do it right. But it CAN be done right.
His post to the Fishman Affidavit was a clear reply to the OP (possibly even informative to the OP), whereas your reply to him added little other than a thinly veiled personal attack.
Not a surprise he responded to your attack in a less than charitable manner given that it was uncalled for.
Now you're suggesting he should be the one to "take a sip of his coffee" and try to relax.
If you really wanted people to be relaxed, maybe you should stop aggravating people, especially unnecessarily.
By replying to this message, you agree to sign away all your rights to me, and once a month, go to a public place, stand on one foot and howl at sky at 12am.
So if Microsoft has a similar bug in IE, the Mozilla team are supposed to not disclose a bug in _Mozilla_ till Microsoft fixes IE?
The bug is similar to previous bugs, so 1) Opera should have fixed it before. 2) There's not really that much time before someone else figures it out anyway.
Maybe Opera and Mozilla should sandbox their browsers by default. Then this problem will just be "upload arbitrary files in the Uploads Directory" (assuming the attacker knows the full path).
Similarly other browser exploits would then only be able to touch stuff inside the sandbox, and wouldn't be able to mess with the user's documents, or turn on the microphone/webcam etc.
Once that happens then hackers might have to start looking for more stuff like the kernel vmsplice bug.
How does Comcast switch off customers who don't pay?
As for this particular complaint, I don't think Comcast is doing anything wrong. Bursting is a useful feature.
It will cost a lot more to provide sustained 2X bandwidth, than to provide a burst of 4X bandwidth for 5 seconds, after say 15 seconds of low usage. The first might make you happy, but the second would make a lot more people happy - the web surfers, the people streaming videos/audio would also be happy - the burst will shorten the "please wait, buffering..." period. Even the mail downloads might go better.
I'd personally be happy with just 1Mbps down and 1Mbps up, but I want very low latency:). Providing higher bandwidth is easier than providing low latency.
Forgot: as for "who owns what's left" - what I meant is who ends up owning the stuff seized.
You dislike the idea of banks 1) owning the seized stuff 2) and maybe selling it off (and maybe selling it off to some person/company/organization/family who ends up owning "everything"...).
But you like the idea of the government doing the same thing? How is that different? Why will that be better?
Which country do you live in, that has such a good government?
In my country (Malaysia) the government is pretty crap and corrupt. There are bad banks too, but there are banks which are less crap than the government;).
Lastly, Banks aren't in the business of owning or renting property/cars/etc, and they often don't get to sell stuff they "seize" at a big profit. Why? For the obvious reason if the house was really worth more than the outstanding amount the person could have sold it, paid the bank back, and then _made_ money.
So why is the Bank such a bad guy for doing that?
The evil I see is when Banks give out strange huge loans (or very many strange loans) to people/companies, and somehow the money goes poof they ask the Government to bail them out, with no consequences to the Bank bosses.
Now if the Government bailed out Banks BUT also jailed and fined the Bank _bosses_ for allowing such _huge_ screw ups (where the Bank really can't afford to pay - not because of a liquidity thing), then perhaps you'd see them be more careful.
In that case why do you think the Government will do a better job than the banks?
While I do believe that a good government can do as good a job as a good bank (if not better), the trouble is the usual case is you get a mediocre or bad government.
At least if there's more than one bank, you have a choice. Using a different bank is usually easier than moving countries. Do note that often even if the governments change the people working in the civil service don't.
So I still think it's better to have banks do that sort of stuff. Your concerns about banks being evil etc might be better addressed by having the government appoint a regulator to ensure that the banks aren't too evil and don't create too much misery.
If a government can't even appoint a decent regulator AND keep it decent (or the government can't be convinced to do so), then I think there's an even smaller chance of the same government running a decent banking service in a sustainable manner.
There's no substitute for having good people in charge, but I suggest that your proposed system is more dependent on good people in the "right places", as such it is less likely to work. Systems which are likely to keep working don't require as many good people around to run them.
Slashdot Mirror
How many people that want a lightsaber would want to use it sensibly?
Takes me a while to find sandpaper someone stashed somewhere years ago, or go out and buy it. Whereas when I send my car for repair I can just tell them "By the way, change the wipers for me, thanks!".
What I would want is a more permanent sort of rainx coating that's compatible with wipers.
No matter what you will need wipers to physically move the "big" stuff rapidly. While water will roll off a water repellent screen, if there's a big splash of water, wipers can remove it faster than it rolls off or gets blown off.
And oh yeah, I also want better wipers. Some are so squeaky, and some quickly "dry up and harden" and stop being effective.
What do they use on the 777 or new planes?
I think the big difference is that the water turns to steam.
:).
I bet the volume ratio of steam:water is a lot higher than hot air: cold air.
Where the relevant temperatures are intake and around ignition.
As for temperature reduction it takes quite a bit more heat to convert water to steam. So too much water would be bad
Which gallon are you using?
UK gallon > US gallon.
But they need to ship it to London or Manchester so the snoops can look at stuff when they want to.
;).
Maybe much of the money you are paying isn't going into upgrading service for customers, but into equipment to make the snooping easier
1) She could just write it down somewhere and keep it reasonably safe.
2) Why can't she even remember a password at 7?
I don't think one should assume that she really can't do it.
Maybe it's hard, but best to start learning to learn stuff whilst you are young. If you leave it till later, the brain just isn't as adaptable.
When I was about 8 I was teaching myself how to program an Apple II clone in 6502 machine code from a cloned manual. My brother has said that he's a bit disappointed with me - given I haven't really achieved much in the end. Oh well...
Regarding government interception, GSM encryption is only from phone to station. At the Telco it's plaintext. So govs can (and probably do) listen to GSM phone calls. Should be common knowledge amongst telco people.
So GSM crypto even if it was uncrackable is not very helpful if you're really trying to hide your comms.
Someone I knew once claimed to have extra crypto on his GSM phone so that he could talk "securely" to other people similarly equipped.
Exponentially increasing cost? No thanks.
:).
I suggest that your proposal means more pain for the customers till they can find substitutes.
Whereas the expiring after 10 years= Fewer entities might be interested in producing stuff since they have to compete against their older stuff. You could say customers get some pain due to less stuff being available, but I don't think it's as clear in this case that there is likely to be widespread pain.
For example: if copyright expired after 10 years, Microsoft would probably have not released something as crap as Vista - people would just keep using Win2K. You could argue that Microsoft would not have released Windows in the first place. But if Microsoft didn't do that maybe Apple would have taken the entire market, with clones coming in 10 years later.
Whereas if cost increased exponentially, Microsoft would have released crap like Vista, and made Win2K and XP more and more expensive. At the right level of pain, customers won't shift away.
You might say "Who will make stuff if people keep coping you?", in China "everyone" copies each other, and they still keep making stuff. You just have to keep making better stuff or cheaper stuff.
Ss for the starving artists - while anecdote != statistic a chinese singer made more money in China singing for company promos/ads etc, than in Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7251211.stm
She still prefers Europe because she believes in Europe they're actually a fan of her music, whereas in China they're just a fan of her looks
Right now, prosecutors can't choose to use the various _theft_ laws to get file sharers even if they wanted to, because the Courts would throw the cases out - copying isn't theft.
That's why they created Copyright laws.
In sane countries the distinction will remain.
But maybe in your country the distinction will go away.
Well if you want something to be private, you normally don't put it out for display in stores where _anyone_ can enter.
Simple: if it was theft they wouldn't need copyright law or DMCA to prosecute file sharing etc, they _could_ choose to use the various laws covering theft for that. Not saying they would but they could.
:).
Of course, if they convince enough people and the courts that it's theft, then legally speaking it'll be theft, BUT that hasn't happened yet, so meanwhile, the rest of us are going to keep saying its not theft
What's closer to theft is the Corporations convincing the government(s) to _retroactively_ take stuff out of the public domain and make it theirs.
When that was done we lost a lot of access/use of those stuff, stuff that we used to have the right to use freely.
What filesharing does is it makes the Corporations lose a lot of access to our money. But the last I checked, they didn't have an automatic right to our money.
Is there actually evidence that China is interested in running the world? Now or near future.
There's plenty of evidence that the USA is.
The US Gov likes to use China and The Terrorists as bogeymen, to scare the populace into letting them do what they want.
Why not, after all it worked when they used Iraq and WMD.
Maybe they might do the same with Iran soon.
But what did the garbageman say?
The last I checked, a large majority of Chinese aren't Buddhists (or Taoists). They actually serve and worship Mammon.
"It's actually more complicated to impossible to write a self recrypting program in any high level language."
;). Plus you wouldn't trigger the Data Execution Prevention/NX thingy if you use a Lisp interpreter.
I think in theory that should be easier to do in Lisp than ASM/machine code
There's also a lot you can do with a few lines of perl, given the very powerful built-in libraries on most platforms that bundle it.
I think you could say similar things about python.
You know why ASM is still important for viruses/malware?
Because Windows doesn't bundle a decent interpreter and java isn't very fun for doing naughty stuff.
Now if OSX or Linux really gets popular on the desktop, perhaps you'll see more malware written in scripting languages.
They used a spreadsheet. Maybe they used Excel 2007, and encountered a minor display error...
Yes it was never designed for that. But I'm saying the design was crap, and still is crap. In other words WiFi is defective by design.
I don't expect WiFi to provide VPN. It's just not nice to get broken stuff when it could have been avoided.
Back when WiFi was first starting out the technology was there (SSL was already around, they could have just copied the ideas), but the WiFi bunch gave us crap instead. To compound the problem they kept rolling out broken stuff to fix broken stuff.
Certificates do not have to be linked to domain names or SSID.
I could create a cert with CN=TheLink and get it signed by a mutually trusted party, and it has nothing to do with DNS.
All you need to know is:
1) They are valid.
2) They are for the entity you expect.
So whether they match the SSID or not is not that important.
The web browser and CA people have tried to make it easier for users to do 1) and 2) by linking it to DNS, and bundling CA certificates.
Something similar could be done for WiFi - the CA certs are probably already usable by nonbrowser apps in Windows.
What is needed is a way for a site (providing the access) to claim they are X, and for a user to be warned if the claim is not verifiable. This does not require DNS.
If people really want stuff like starbucks.wifi appearing in their WiFi control UIs where the SSID stuff normally appears then protocols and standards would have to be extended or created (since it wasn't done right from the start ).
User sees a list of wireless networks
Tells client to connect to one.
Client connects to an AP.
AP claims- "I'm starbucks.wifi, here's my cert with CN=starbucks.wifi".
If client is expecting starbucks.wifi and the cert is signed by a acceptable party then client proceeds.
Then depending on the policy the user gets prompted with a choice, or error, or the connection is not allowed.
It's not trivial to do it right. But it CAN be done right.
His post to the Fishman Affidavit was a clear reply to the OP (possibly even informative to the OP), whereas your reply to him added little other than a thinly veiled personal attack.
Not a surprise he responded to your attack in a less than charitable manner given that it was uncalled for.
Now you're suggesting he should be the one to "take a sip of his coffee" and try to relax.
If you really wanted people to be relaxed, maybe you should stop aggravating people, especially unnecessarily.
Didn't make "friends" enough money.
;).
After all said "friends" weren't the best talent around
By replying to this message, you agree to sign away all your rights to me, and once a month, go to a public place, stand on one foot and howl at sky at 12am.
What no replies?
*yawn*
So if Microsoft has a similar bug in IE, the Mozilla team are supposed to not disclose a bug in _Mozilla_ till Microsoft fixes IE?
The bug is similar to previous bugs, so
1) Opera should have fixed it before.
2) There's not really that much time before someone else figures it out anyway.
Maybe Opera and Mozilla should sandbox their browsers by default. Then this problem will just be "upload arbitrary files in the Uploads Directory" (assuming the attacker knows the full path).
Similarly other browser exploits would then only be able to touch stuff inside the sandbox, and wouldn't be able to mess with the user's documents, or turn on the microphone/webcam etc.
Once that happens then hackers might have to start looking for more stuff like the kernel vmsplice bug.
How does Comcast switch off customers who don't pay?
:). Providing higher bandwidth is easier than providing low latency.
As for this particular complaint, I don't think Comcast is doing anything wrong. Bursting is a useful feature.
It will cost a lot more to provide sustained 2X bandwidth, than to provide a burst of 4X bandwidth for 5 seconds, after say 15 seconds of low usage. The first might make you happy, but the second would make a lot more people happy - the web surfers, the people streaming videos/audio would also be happy - the burst will shorten the "please wait, buffering..." period. Even the mail downloads might go better.
I'd personally be happy with just 1Mbps down and 1Mbps up, but I want very low latency
Forgot: as for "who owns what's left" - what I meant is who ends up owning the stuff seized.
;).
You dislike the idea of banks
1) owning the seized stuff
2) and maybe selling it off
(and maybe selling it off to some person/company/organization/family who ends up owning "everything"...).
But you like the idea of the government doing the same thing? How is that different? Why will that be better?
Which country do you live in, that has such a good government?
In my country (Malaysia) the government is pretty crap and corrupt. There are bad banks too, but there are banks which are less crap than the government
Lastly, Banks aren't in the business of owning or renting property/cars/etc, and they often don't get to sell stuff they "seize" at a big profit. Why? For the obvious reason if the house was really worth more than the outstanding amount the person could have sold it, paid the bank back, and then _made_ money.
So why is the Bank such a bad guy for doing that?
The evil I see is when Banks give out strange huge loans (or very many strange loans) to people/companies, and somehow the money goes poof they ask the Government to bail them out, with no consequences to the Bank bosses.
Now if the Government bailed out Banks BUT also jailed and fined the Bank _bosses_ for allowing such _huge_ screw ups (where the Bank really can't afford to pay - not because of a liquidity thing), then perhaps you'd see them be more careful.
In that case why do you think the Government will do a better job than the banks?
While I do believe that a good government can do as good a job as a good bank (if not better), the trouble is the usual case is you get a mediocre or bad government.
At least if there's more than one bank, you have a choice. Using a different bank is usually easier than moving countries. Do note that often even if the governments change the people working in the civil service don't.
So I still think it's better to have banks do that sort of stuff. Your concerns about banks being evil etc might be better addressed by having the government appoint a regulator to ensure that the banks aren't too evil and don't create too much misery.
If a government can't even appoint a decent regulator AND keep it decent (or the government can't be convinced to do so), then I think there's an even smaller chance of the same government running a decent banking service in a sustainable manner.
There's no substitute for having good people in charge, but I suggest that your proposed system is more dependent on good people in the "right places", as such it is less likely to work. Systems which are likely to keep working don't require as many good people around to run them.