The same with google.com or gmail.com or facebook or any website that needs to support a variety of browsers (even browsers that are not standards compaint).
PS: wikipedia was complaint, its should applauded for its effort.
I am already using HTML5-ifier in chrome running on linux. Its cool, hardly uses 10% of the resources compared to the flash version.
My only gripes about html5-ifier are that it does not support auto-start yet, ie automatically start playing video on open and that it does not have playlist support, ie at the end of a video start playing the next video on queue. Otherwise its superb!
If you don't trust the host computer, why would you unlock the device at all?
The GP talks about the device trusting the host. Not about the user trusting the device or the host. To clarify further, I always use my encrypted device on machines I trust, but it doesn't mean the device should assume any machine it is plugged into is my trusted machine and it can unlock right away.
Nope, it should simply refuse to supply the host with unencrypted data, no matter what the host tries to do. It doesnt matter if it is fried or dies in a struggle with a malicious host, it needs to stay stupid and open if the key has been given, if not do nothing.
Did I miss something in the linked article? It says "A new heat-sensing scanner can detect concealed weapons without revealing a person's identity or intimate anatomical details." Mmm is it same as the passive broadband millimeter-wave/terahertz you talk about in your post?
More seriously, remember INTERPOL actually has very little power - they're a coordination agency. They have no powers of arrest. They don't even DO investigations.
Er, then why do these people actually need immunity?
Unless the INTERPOL goes crazy with the president's implicit/explicit consent. Mass violation of the constitution by the INTERPOL, no problem, these guys are free to go. Neither the fed or the states can prosecute them.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Are you sure it was not a phishing site that was made to look similar to gmail? I recommend you visit https://mail.google.com/ instead.
Ah thanks! that seems to work!! And here is PDF link to the slides, if any body is still following this story - http://www.azulsystems.com/events/javaone_2009/session/2009_J1_HardwareCrashCourse.pdf
Or type http://www.infoq.com/resource/presentations/click-crash-course-modern-hardware/en/slides/1.swf
And change the the number at the end to change slides
PS: I am no good in javascript, but the above, in FF 3.5/Linux, just displayed a page saying "true"
Mirror available at http://www.mediafire.com/?j21t2ynnnzn
And please stop hitting the server liked in GP's post. The poor server hardly sustains 30 KB/s.
Er, scratch that, it was supposed to be Anonymous!
Meh, mine is a 0-digit UID. I win, game over!
Note the date of this article, 2002. It would be different scenario if it had happened today.
May be for support from the US government, so that they will have some backing in case China decided to retaliate somehow.
Here is a slightly more informative article - http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/4701803
The same with google.com or gmail.com or facebook or any website that needs to support a variety of browsers (even browsers that are not standards compaint).
PS: wikipedia was complaint, its should applauded for its effort.
The speed of tachyon is unbreakable! How about that :)
I am already using HTML5-ifier in chrome running on linux. Its cool, hardly uses 10% of the resources compared to the flash version.
My only gripes about html5-ifier are that it does not support auto-start yet, ie automatically start playing video on open and that it does not have playlist support, ie at the end of a video start playing the next video on queue. Otherwise its superb!
It's neat to see that Chromium OS is going to be light. (Yeah, Linux is also. As is mobile version of Windows. But more options is still nice.)
Er, actually Chromium is Linux.
802.11n can, atleast according to the specs
Yes, FCC mandates it actually.
If you don't trust the host computer, why would you unlock the device at all?
The GP talks about the device trusting the host. Not about the user trusting the device or the host. To clarify further, I always use my encrypted device on machines I trust, but it doesn't mean the device should assume any machine it is plugged into is my trusted machine and it can unlock right away.
Nope, it should simply refuse to supply the host with unencrypted data, no matter what the host tries to do. It doesnt matter if it is fried or dies in a struggle with a malicious host, it needs to stay stupid and open if the key has been given, if not do nothing.
oopsie, was actually replying to GP's post
Because THIS IS AMERICA!!!
Did I miss something in the linked article? It says "A new heat-sensing scanner can detect concealed weapons without revealing a person's identity or intimate anatomical details." Mmm is it same as the passive broadband millimeter-wave/terahertz you talk about in your post?
Ahh dont forget - makes it difficult/impossible to resell the DRMed content (in the case of content delivered through internet) - Check
May be that is their intention. May be they want us to watch it once and throw it away. Let see what supports this...
DRMed content is not valid for ever - Check
Not all devices can play the content - Check
Its Illegal to attempt to break DRM - Check
More seriously, remember INTERPOL actually has very little power - they're a coordination agency. They have no powers of arrest. They don't even DO investigations.
Er, then why do these people actually need immunity?
Unless the INTERPOL goes crazy with the president's implicit/explicit consent. Mass violation of the constitution by the INTERPOL, no problem, these guys are free to go. Neither the fed or the states can prosecute them.
And you use money you printed?