What about your power supply? Is that not allowed to go along a road? I am all for underground power BTW but I know that if you operate a digger and you want to find the owner of a cable the easiest way is to break it and wait for the complaints.
That's also the fastest way to get rescued off a desert island or out in the woods, and why you should always carry a piece of fiber in your pocket. Should you get stranded, you simply bury the fiber, and some asshole with a backhoe will be along in about five minutes to cut it. Ask him to rescue you.
NoScript is set to not disable JavaScript on the base domains and children, so if I were browsing on www.example.com, it would permit javascript from example.com and scripts.example.com.
Most advertising is not self-hosted, because the advertisers can't trust web site owners to fairly report traffic. That makes it simple to segregate ads via a rule based system.
So to answer your question, just about every site out there works just fine without the third-party javascript. Every time I use a browser that doesn't have NoScript, I find myself appalled at the crap other people have to put up with -- exceedingly slow page load times, ads wrapping themselves around the cursor, fake popups trying to get me to install fake anti-virus programs.
Most of the "slow" seems to come from waiting on the third party to deliver their uselessness. I don't really notice perceptible delays during the actual rendering of the self-hosted scripts.
If it doesn't trust the domain, NoScript also blocks a lot of other stuff, too. Flash, Java, Silverlight, <AUDIO> and <VIDEO>, and objects. And as a bonus, it complains bitterly about XSS attacks.
I concede that you and I don't make the laws, we have to abide by them, but still it's not a defence to say "I don't agree this stupid law."
Actually, it can be. There's a legal concept called "jury nullification," where if the jury thinks the law is bad they can refuse to convict someone of breaking it.
It doesn't get used much, and it pisses a lot of people off (you will likely make the judge very mad for suggesting it.) But if you can convince a jury to agree with you that the law is wrong, you can walk away.
Yeah, we have a lot of Department of Transportation (DoT) jokes:
Q: What's orange and sleeps three? A: A DoT truck.
Q: Why did the DoT worker boycott a Japanese company? A: For inventing a shovel that leans by itself.
In Minnesota, we have two seasons: winter, and road construction.
I'm sure there are others. But yeah, I do take the work zones very seriously. I'm scared for those guys, and I'd hate myself if I hurt someone because I was speeding through their workplace.
The relationship between vehicle travel speeds and resulting pedestrian injury was reviewed in the literature and in existing data sets. Results indicated that higher vehicle speeds are strongly associated with both a greater likelihood of pedestrian crash occurrence and more serious resulting pedestrian injury. It was estimated that only 5 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour or less. This compares with fatality rates of 40, 80, and nearly 100 percent for striking speeds of 30, 40, and 50 miles per hour or more respectively.
There are other documents in the report that go on to discuss photo enforcement efforts in Arizona, but they're not quite as relevant.
Seriously? You can't do five minutes of your own research? I simply copied and pasted your above statement into Google, and this link, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/highwayworkzones/ , was fourth from the top. It includes a lot of documents that are relevant, including this useful summary:
During the 1995 to 2002 period, 844 workers were killed while working at a road construction site. During this same period there were 9325 deaths in the construction industry. The 844 worker deaths in road construction represent 9% of all deaths in construction. More than half of these fatalities were attributable to a worker being struck by a vehicle or mobile equipment. Workplace fatalities that occur at a road construction site typically account for 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent of all workplace fatalities annually.
Road construction fatality rates are disproportionately higher than most other occupations. As to whether or not Arizona is more or less prone to road construction fatalities, the document only ranks the top and bottom five, and Arizona was in neither. But even if their work zones were among the safest in the nation, that's not saying much. It's still a very hazardous occupation.
Further summarizing the document's contents, of the 693 fatalities between 1995 and 2002, 509 were due to a worker being struck by a vehicle. The rest were "construction" types of accidents, including falls, struck by objects, contact with electricity, etc. Of the 509 deaths caused by vehicles, 363 occurred in the roadway, and 119 occurred off to the side of the road.
So don't delude yourself for a moment into thinking that work zones aren't dangerous places for workers, or that traffic isn't the primary cause of death for the workers. It is.
The problem is that since it's not a multi purpose media player like the PS3, people have to justify their purchases to specifically playing games. At least with the Sony machine you can play ordinary Blu-ray disks.
I guess it'll remain to be seen if Nintendo comes up with the novel hook yet again. Wii-motes were indeed awesome. The balance board is still awesome. But what can they do to top themselves? Echo location? Facial expression recognition? They also are kind of bound to keep themselves kid-friendly, which means more adult-oriented accessories are out of their picture -- no Wii-AK-47s or Wii-M16A4s with sniper scopes.
Maybe they'll have a traffic tutor and 3D output and sell Wii-Certified Driving School games. Or maybe they'll make the Wii-motes interact with each other so you can actually play light sabers with your buddies. Don't know.
I put one of these: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=electric+door+strike between my house and garage 20 years ago, and put a simple keypad on it. Add some kind of CPU and the same strike would work for RFID access.
The keypad is not terribly high security, but my garage has no pedestrian doors to the outside or any windows at all, and the overhead door is quite secure. If a bad guy gets into the garage, they're going to find enough tools to take care of whatever door locks I have anyway -- if they don't simply steal the tools and leave.
move in with your girlfriend, that will save you 3 keys right there
Or do what your girlfriend does, and use a purse. -_-
Better. Have your girlfriend carry her own damn keys, and leave your set at home. I wouldn't go into someone else's place if I wasn't with them (no reason), so the only time you'd need those keys would be "special occasions." In that case, bring them from home.
And that's true for all your keys. You don't need all of them all of the time, only when you're using the thing being locked. Leave them in the proper place otherwise.
The bicycle key can stay with the bicycle lock, until the time you go for a ride. Instead of a full key-ring, you can use a safety pin/clip to secure it to your clothing. If you leave a spare house key on that ring, you don't have to carry two rings. Spare keys only cost $5 each, it's not like you'll break the bank to have a few extras.
The roof: leave it inside your place. I seriously doubt you have many occasions to go straight to your roof without stopping inside your place first.
Postbox: do you need the key with you all the time, or only when you're near it? My mailbox is on a pillar at the end of my cul-de-sac, so I leave the key in the truck, and stop on the way home from work. If I'm at home and I want to get the mail, I reach into the truck, walk to the end of the drive, use the key, then return it to its resting place in the truck.
His talk is a year old already. You don't think he's disclosed it to the banks long ago? No, they've had all the warning they need. Now it's time to prove they've fixed their equipment.
Seriously, if he never releases his info, it will never get fixed. You can talk to the I.T. staff for a year about the problems and nothing will get done. The banks can even have a guy inside I.T. shouting "we gotta fix this!!" and he'll be ignored.
Post it on the internet, deliver it to a roomful of blackhats, THEN something will get done. Until then, however, we're all still vulnerable to the bad guys who are already exploiting this kind of crap.
Only two groups of people should be upset by this revelation: any thieves exploiting the weakness who may soon lose their money stream, and the banks who have to plug these holes.
The only reason the banks should have to be mad is that they may not have budgeted the costs of these fixes for this year. Well that's too bad, I'm all broke up for them.
So again I ask, why you are mad? Are you a banker or a thief? (And yes those are usually different unless you're on Wall Street.)
Perhaps you missed the word "easily" in my comment, which is a critical (but often overlooked) attribute of a useful and successful product. In most cases it's far more important than performance.
I used to block ad servers in my hosts file back in the 1990s. It was a manual waste of time back then, and I don't see that it got any faster just because we're doing it in 2010. With NoScript I'm no longer wasting time opening the source to a web page, finding the offending javascript reference, navigating to a file, opening it in an editor, typing the host name of the offender, and saving it. Yes, that's a lot of work to maintain when you multiply it by the continual inflow of spammers and scammers.
NoScript is different. It isn't blindly context-insensitive, like a hosts file. It analyzes the links and automatically blocks any scripts from sites that don't share a domain with the site being viewed. That means with no extra effort on my part, current and future third party scripts are blocked. That means crap like google-analytics, hitstat, crazyegg, whatever, all gone and not slowing me down. I can't even remember all the sites I used to have to learn about, then go block. They're gone from my memory, and gone from my browser.
And if there's a page that doesn't deliver something because a third party site is blocked, a quick click and marking it as "trusted" whitelists it, and the page automatically reloads with the desired content. Vimeo and youtube are in the whitelist, as are many other useful places.
The hosts file solution doesn't compare in terms of usability or function. It's not even close.
My point is simply that Google is pimping Chrome partly based on its JavaScript performance, without concern for whether JavaScript is good or bad. By that metric alone the more JavaScript you encounter, the better Chrome looks.
But NoScript's philosophy is pretty much the opposite: "JavaScript sucks out loud because it's primarily used by advertisers to annoy you, marketers to track you, and spammers to XSS redirect you to corrupted web sites where they'll install drive-by botnet installers; but we'll still let you run it easily if you say you need it."
I use PDF Download to solve that problem under Firefox. But with Chrome, each browser tab is an independent process. Load up something in a tab (such as a PDF) and it's borked? Close the tab, problem solved. Doesn't seem like it would be a big issue for Chrome.
But think about it: you want NoScript from Google, considering that Chrome's only real claim-to-fame is to run JavaScript faster than everyone else.
For me, the only actual temptation to use Chrome is to get the independent processes in each tab, and the next version of Firefox will have that.
I would argue that Firefox with NoScript is faster than Chrome with scripts. Not rendering the crap at all makes for a much better web experience for both me and my browser.
A non-integrated system doesn't mean the equipment isn't sharing the same network infrastructure. Viruses, worms, malware or whatever, they don't restrict themselves to looking for "integrated systems" to infect. They blast their payloads out to any network or subnet address within reach. Vulnerable systems get infected, integrated or not.
The things I'm talking about are machines that have no apparent medical business being on the network, yet are. I was looking at an ultrasound machine that was still running XP SP1 because that's what the vendor shipped. And it was obviously on the network because the doctor was able to send the images electronically. Why it wasn't adequate to simply drop the printed copies of images into the file folder that was sitting next to him, I don't know.
Sure, nobody is SUPPOSED to go to the desktop and surf the web from that machine, or read their email from it, but that doesn't mean it's not vulnerable to some other attack like Blaster. Other concerns are that since the machine is portable, and it has had patient information in it, that encryption might prevent someone from harvesting patient names (and whatever other information is associated with the patient and is still on the hard drive.)
Bottom line: that hospital's infrastructure was fragile, as I suspect most of them are. Sure, mandated encryption is a politician's stupid requirement that probably won't solve many real-world problems. But plugging personal equipment into a weakly secured network is a high risk proposition, one they should immediately cut off.
In fact, most medical devices are completely physically isolated, and the ones that aren't are only marginally connected
In fact, you're due for quite a shock. Most of the machines I've been told about that I thought should be isolated were indeed on the network along with a lot of other stuff.
Those EULAs simply get Microsoft (or the OS vendor) off the hook if something goes catastrophically wrong. They don't actually prevent someone from using it in a safety critical application.
If I were a patient in your hospital, and the doctor was using some ultrasound machine or other PC-based diagnostic device, and the damn thing had a virus that caused a misdiagnosis, I'd be right pissed at the person who brought the virus in.
I know that lots of those machines are still running the manufacturer's originally-shipped OS, because they don't certify every OS hotfix and patch that comes out. I also know that if the thing can email a doctor a copy of the results, the doctors insist that the email works, so a network connection is mandatory. So you could be operating a production system on a completely unprotected environment.
Bringing in anything at all, whether it be a USB stick or a CD-ROM, could threaten those devices. And with our health care on the line, you want us to defend rules that might help clean up a risky mess?
Slashdot Mirror
If they lose the class-action suit they'll just have to pay the lawyers and give out discount coupons for Google search.
Maybe they'll have to offer free links to advertisements for people to put on their web pages.
I read that as "sex offenses against morons". It doesn't read the same after that.
What about your power supply? Is that not allowed to go along a road? I am all for underground power BTW but I know that if you operate a digger and you want to find the owner of a cable the easiest way is to break it and wait for the complaints.
That's also the fastest way to get rescued off a desert island or out in the woods, and why you should always carry a piece of fiber in your pocket. Should you get stranded, you simply bury the fiber, and some asshole with a backhoe will be along in about five minutes to cut it. Ask him to rescue you.
I'm kind of foggy on the details myself.
NoScript is set to not disable JavaScript on the base domains and children, so if I were browsing on www.example.com, it would permit javascript from example.com and scripts.example.com.
Most advertising is not self-hosted, because the advertisers can't trust web site owners to fairly report traffic. That makes it simple to segregate ads via a rule based system.
So to answer your question, just about every site out there works just fine without the third-party javascript. Every time I use a browser that doesn't have NoScript, I find myself appalled at the crap other people have to put up with -- exceedingly slow page load times, ads wrapping themselves around the cursor, fake popups trying to get me to install fake anti-virus programs.
Most of the "slow" seems to come from waiting on the third party to deliver their uselessness. I don't really notice perceptible delays during the actual rendering of the self-hosted scripts.
If it doesn't trust the domain, NoScript also blocks a lot of other stuff, too. Flash, Java, Silverlight, <AUDIO> and <VIDEO>, and objects. And as a bonus, it complains bitterly about XSS attacks.
I concede that you and I don't make the laws, we have to abide by them, but still it's not a defence to say "I don't agree this stupid law."
Actually, it can be. There's a legal concept called "jury nullification," where if the jury thinks the law is bad they can refuse to convict someone of breaking it.
It doesn't get used much, and it pisses a lot of people off (you will likely make the judge very mad for suggesting it.) But if you can convince a jury to agree with you that the law is wrong, you can walk away.
Yeah, we have a lot of Department of Transportation (DoT) jokes:
Q: What's orange and sleeps three?
A: A DoT truck.
Q: Why did the DoT worker boycott a Japanese company?
A: For inventing a shovel that leans by itself.
In Minnesota, we have two seasons: winter, and road construction.
I'm sure there are others. But yeah, I do take the work zones very seriously. I'm scared for those guys, and I'd hate myself if I hurt someone because I was speeding through their workplace.
Oh, and the fifth link down from your query is this: Literture Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries. I'll paste from the abstract of the first document cited:
16. Abstract
The relationship between vehicle travel speeds and resulting pedestrian injury was reviewed in the literature and in existing data sets. Results indicated that higher vehicle speeds are strongly associated with both a greater likelihood of pedestrian crash occurrence and more serious resulting pedestrian injury. It was estimated that only 5 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour or less. This compares with fatality rates of 40, 80, and nearly 100 percent for striking speeds of 30, 40, and 50 miles per hour or more respectively.
There are other documents in the report that go on to discuss photo enforcement efforts in Arizona, but they're not quite as relevant.
Seriously? You can't do five minutes of your own research? I simply copied and pasted your above statement into Google, and this link, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/highwayworkzones/ , was fourth from the top. It includes a lot of documents that are relevant, including this useful summary:
During the 1995 to 2002 period, 844 workers were killed while working at a road construction site. During this same period there were 9325 deaths in the construction industry. The 844 worker deaths in road construction represent 9% of all deaths in construction. More than half of these fatalities were attributable to a worker being struck by a vehicle or mobile equipment. Workplace fatalities that occur at a road construction site typically account for 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent of all workplace fatalities annually.
of this document: Source: Fatal occupational injuries at road construction sites
Road construction fatality rates are disproportionately higher than most other occupations. As to whether or not Arizona is more or less prone to road construction fatalities, the document only ranks the top and bottom five, and Arizona was in neither. But even if their work zones were among the safest in the nation, that's not saying much. It's still a very hazardous occupation.
Further summarizing the document's contents, of the 693 fatalities between 1995 and 2002, 509 were due to a worker being struck by a vehicle. The rest were "construction" types of accidents, including falls, struck by objects, contact with electricity, etc. Of the 509 deaths caused by vehicles, 363 occurred in the roadway, and 119 occurred off to the side of the road.
So don't delude yourself for a moment into thinking that work zones aren't dangerous places for workers, or that traffic isn't the primary cause of death for the workers. It is.
The problem is that since it's not a multi purpose media player like the PS3, people have to justify their purchases to specifically playing games. At least with the Sony machine you can play ordinary Blu-ray disks.
I guess it'll remain to be seen if Nintendo comes up with the novel hook yet again. Wii-motes were indeed awesome. The balance board is still awesome. But what can they do to top themselves? Echo location? Facial expression recognition? They also are kind of bound to keep themselves kid-friendly, which means more adult-oriented accessories are out of their picture -- no Wii-AK-47s or Wii-M16A4s with sniper scopes.
Maybe they'll have a traffic tutor and 3D output and sell Wii-Certified Driving School games. Or maybe they'll make the Wii-motes interact with each other so you can actually play light sabers with your buddies. Don't know.
I put one of these: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=electric+door+strike between my house and garage 20 years ago, and put a simple keypad on it. Add some kind of CPU and the same strike would work for RFID access.
The keypad is not terribly high security, but my garage has no pedestrian doors to the outside or any windows at all, and the overhead door is quite secure. If a bad guy gets into the garage, they're going to find enough tools to take care of whatever door locks I have anyway -- if they don't simply steal the tools and leave.
move in with your girlfriend, that will save you 3 keys right there
Or do what your girlfriend does, and use a purse. -_-
Better. Have your girlfriend carry her own damn keys, and leave your set at home. I wouldn't go into someone else's place if I wasn't with them (no reason), so the only time you'd need those keys would be "special occasions." In that case, bring them from home.
And that's true for all your keys. You don't need all of them all of the time, only when you're using the thing being locked. Leave them in the proper place otherwise.
The bicycle key can stay with the bicycle lock, until the time you go for a ride. Instead of a full key-ring, you can use a safety pin/clip to secure it to your clothing. If you leave a spare house key on that ring, you don't have to carry two rings. Spare keys only cost $5 each, it's not like you'll break the bank to have a few extras.
The roof: leave it inside your place. I seriously doubt you have many occasions to go straight to your roof without stopping inside your place first.
Postbox: do you need the key with you all the time, or only when you're near it? My mailbox is on a pillar at the end of my cul-de-sac, so I leave the key in the truck, and stop on the way home from work. If I'm at home and I want to get the mail, I reach into the truck, walk to the end of the drive, use the key, then return it to its resting place in the truck.
Just think about them.
His talk is a year old already. You don't think he's disclosed it to the banks long ago? No, they've had all the warning they need. Now it's time to prove they've fixed their equipment.
Seriously, if he never releases his info, it will never get fixed. You can talk to the I.T. staff for a year about the problems and nothing will get done. The banks can even have a guy inside I.T. shouting "we gotta fix this!!" and he'll be ignored.
Post it on the internet, deliver it to a roomful of blackhats, THEN something will get done. Until then, however, we're all still vulnerable to the bad guys who are already exploiting this kind of crap.
What pisses me off is that he is publishing this.
Why does that make you mad?
Only two groups of people should be upset by this revelation: any thieves exploiting the weakness who may soon lose their money stream, and the banks who have to plug these holes.
The only reason the banks should have to be mad is that they may not have budgeted the costs of these fixes for this year. Well that's too bad, I'm all broke up for them.
So again I ask, why you are mad? Are you a banker or a thief? (And yes those are usually different unless you're on Wall Street.)
Perhaps you missed the word "easily" in my comment, which is a critical (but often overlooked) attribute of a useful and successful product. In most cases it's far more important than performance.
I used to block ad servers in my hosts file back in the 1990s. It was a manual waste of time back then, and I don't see that it got any faster just because we're doing it in 2010. With NoScript I'm no longer wasting time opening the source to a web page, finding the offending javascript reference, navigating to a file, opening it in an editor, typing the host name of the offender, and saving it. Yes, that's a lot of work to maintain when you multiply it by the continual inflow of spammers and scammers.
NoScript is different. It isn't blindly context-insensitive, like a hosts file. It analyzes the links and automatically blocks any scripts from sites that don't share a domain with the site being viewed. That means with no extra effort on my part, current and future third party scripts are blocked. That means crap like google-analytics, hitstat, crazyegg, whatever, all gone and not slowing me down. I can't even remember all the sites I used to have to learn about, then go block. They're gone from my memory, and gone from my browser.
And if there's a page that doesn't deliver something because a third party site is blocked, a quick click and marking it as "trusted" whitelists it, and the page automatically reloads with the desired content. Vimeo and youtube are in the whitelist, as are many other useful places.
The hosts file solution doesn't compare in terms of usability or function. It's not even close.
My point is simply that Google is pimping Chrome partly based on its JavaScript performance, without concern for whether JavaScript is good or bad. By that metric alone the more JavaScript you encounter, the better Chrome looks.
But NoScript's philosophy is pretty much the opposite: "JavaScript sucks out loud because it's primarily used by advertisers to annoy you, marketers to track you, and spammers to XSS redirect you to corrupted web sites where they'll install drive-by botnet installers; but we'll still let you run it easily if you say you need it."
I use PDF Download to solve that problem under Firefox. But with Chrome, each browser tab is an independent process. Load up something in a tab (such as a PDF) and it's borked? Close the tab, problem solved. Doesn't seem like it would be a big issue for Chrome.
Absolutely. NoScript is all the magic.
But think about it: you want NoScript from Google, considering that Chrome's only real claim-to-fame is to run JavaScript faster than everyone else.
For me, the only actual temptation to use Chrome is to get the independent processes in each tab, and the next version of Firefox will have that.
I would argue that Firefox with NoScript is faster than Chrome with scripts. Not rendering the crap at all makes for a much better web experience for both me and my browser.
NONE SHALL FLASH!
You mean Gandalf is really Steve Jobs?
Damn. You made Baby Frodo cry.
I'm sure that's "more than enough storage" for all my digital files...
<oblig>640 zettabytes ought to be enough for anybody.</oblig>
A zettabyte is more data than you generate during your whole lifetime. It's pointless to have so much space.
Ooooh, it sounds like somebody's pr0n collection seems a bit inadequate today.
I think you just described a "clusterfucker".
A non-integrated system doesn't mean the equipment isn't sharing the same network infrastructure. Viruses, worms, malware or whatever, they don't restrict themselves to looking for "integrated systems" to infect. They blast their payloads out to any network or subnet address within reach. Vulnerable systems get infected, integrated or not.
The things I'm talking about are machines that have no apparent medical business being on the network, yet are. I was looking at an ultrasound machine that was still running XP SP1 because that's what the vendor shipped. And it was obviously on the network because the doctor was able to send the images electronically. Why it wasn't adequate to simply drop the printed copies of images into the file folder that was sitting next to him, I don't know.
Sure, nobody is SUPPOSED to go to the desktop and surf the web from that machine, or read their email from it, but that doesn't mean it's not vulnerable to some other attack like Blaster. Other concerns are that since the machine is portable, and it has had patient information in it, that encryption might prevent someone from harvesting patient names (and whatever other information is associated with the patient and is still on the hard drive.)
Bottom line: that hospital's infrastructure was fragile, as I suspect most of them are. Sure, mandated encryption is a politician's stupid requirement that probably won't solve many real-world problems. But plugging personal equipment into a weakly secured network is a high risk proposition, one they should immediately cut off.
In fact, most medical devices are completely physically isolated, and the ones that aren't are only marginally connected
In fact, you're due for quite a shock. Most of the machines I've been told about that I thought should be isolated were indeed on the network along with a lot of other stuff.
Those EULAs simply get Microsoft (or the OS vendor) off the hook if something goes catastrophically wrong. They don't actually prevent someone from using it in a safety critical application.
"Find a new job" may be a curse, not advice.
If I were a patient in your hospital, and the doctor was using some ultrasound machine or other PC-based diagnostic device, and the damn thing had a virus that caused a misdiagnosis, I'd be right pissed at the person who brought the virus in.
I know that lots of those machines are still running the manufacturer's originally-shipped OS, because they don't certify every OS hotfix and patch that comes out. I also know that if the thing can email a doctor a copy of the results, the doctors insist that the email works, so a network connection is mandatory. So you could be operating a production system on a completely unprotected environment.
Bringing in anything at all, whether it be a USB stick or a CD-ROM, could threaten those devices. And with our health care on the line, you want us to defend rules that might help clean up a risky mess?
Wrong crowd.