I think that you failed to notice the point that I had made in my very first remark, where I explicitly said that it may be easier for Netflix to police situations where people are using fake billing addresses out of country in cases where it *DOES* happen, if they are so inclined.
So to the matter at hand, I didn't lie, I really made an overbroad generalization. It may indeed be possible, as you have asserted, but it is almost certainly detectable for any card issuer I've heard of, and as such, impractical for any purposes of trying to actually hide where a person lives, or at least their country of origin, and why it should still generally be adequate for Netflix.
But you've said you don't believe it, or me... so google credit card number BIN and research it yourself. There is actually *FAR* more information that can be extracted from a credit card number than just the issuer, bank, and account number. Among the fields in the first half-dozen or so digits (depending on the issuer), a code for the specific country of origin is there as well. You've asked me for proof, and I've tried to offer the back-up on that point that I know exists, what evidence can YOU offer that suggests that the country code that is part of the BIN is *NOT* tied to specific country that the user acquired it in?
Pay as you go credit cards are also easily identifiable as such from the first 6 digits. Oh and the country of origin is still identifiable. Sure, you can buy a pay-as-you go credit card while in another country and use it to your hearts content from somewhere else, but then you are talking about doing something that requires doing real work.
Right now, people watch out-of-nation Netflix because it's easy to do, when something is inconvenient enough you won't stop the people that are determined to still do it, but those tend to represent a pretty small percentage of the population.
Oh, and the unrealistic expectation that either a system should be absolutely perfect or else not utilized at all is a classic false dilemma fallacy. Certainly it would probably be far more effective than trying to ban known VPN's.
The first digits indicate the issuing bank, but if the bank is multi-national that's utterly worthless as a reliable indicator of location.
That assumption is incorrect. A bank may be multinational, but barring jumping through a lot of hoops to get a card from a bank outside of the nation where one lives, the card will still be issued from a bank in the user's own country and reflected in the first few digits of the card.
The first few (I think it's 6) digits on the card will still indicate which country the issuing bank happens to be in. Getting a credit card from a bank located in another country from where you actually live tends to be rather complicated.
I feel compelled to point out that most dinnerware manufactures make a full line of dinnerware options, including plates, breakfast bowls, cups, as well as cream jugs and sugar bowls, all of which are no less capable of achieving flight than their line of saucers, however briefly said flight might be.
Encryption is bad only if you presume that either the only, or at least the far most likely reason anyone might want something to be hidden from others is because they are doing or have done something wrong.
Except that this is *FAR* from true. Insisting that people shouldn't try and hide things from people who might claim to mean well is equivalent suggesting that people really shouldn't have privacy at all, and it is nothing less than absurd to suggest that nobody should have any rights to any privacy, ever, unless you do things like outlaw clothing (which may hide a person's body from public view), for example. With a flawed premise, the entire argument for suggesting that strong encryption should be outlawed falls apart.
If they insist on restricting content based on location, just use the friggin' geographical location of the subscriber's billing address. If the subscriber happens to be in another country than their billing address, so what? That's still where they are billed, so it shouldn't matter. As a marketable feature, this also gives subscribers access to all of the same content that they would enjoy at home while they may be visiting another country. Note further, that I say *BILLING* address, not mailing address. While getting an out of country mailing address to send stuff to for drop shipment or even for out-of-country pickup is quite common (I have one myself), that's not at all the same thing as a person's billing address.
While this won't stop people who explicitly decide to try and get a credit card with an out-of-country billing address to get around this, I do not think that such conditions should hardly be considered the norm until proven otherwise, and it might even be easier for them to police anyways, if they are so inclined.
In embedded v8, it is a headache and a half to create custom types that vitally need to perform some task such as releasing used memory held by a native implementation upon cleanup. In v8, if you simply want to have some cleanup code get called, you have to allocate a Persistent along with your data, explicitly invoke SetWeak on that Persistent to specify the finalize callback, and then make sure that you keep the allocated persistent around for the lifetime of your custom object (which means that your finalize callback needs to release the memory allocated for the persistent itself in addition to releasing memory used by your custom type). In Chakracore, it appears that you can pass a finalize method directly to JsCreateExternalObject when you create the javascript value... no messing around with the extra storage that v8 needs for persistent types that are not allocated on the stack.
Also, the ChakraCore API also has an advantage of having a smaller and much simpler C API than v8's C++-only API.
Additionally, I have to say that Microsoft's documentation of Chakra's javascript runtime kicks ass over Google's documentation of v8's.
I haven't had a chance to play with Chakra yet myself, having only perused the API docs so far, and the projects that I'm working on that use embedded v8 are far too v8-entrenched to migrate them to using another javascript engine, but I will strongly consider using it in any future new projects.
Actually, even that's not what Volvo is *actually* saying... all they are saying is "there will be no serious injuries or fatalities in new Volvo cars".
I am admittedly just as guilty as those writing the headlines saying that they are "death-proof", for saying that they claimed they will be "accident-proof".
I would suggest that their claim is probably even physically possible, to the extent that the vehicle has not been placed in artificially contrived circumstances (such as physically lifting the car off of the ground and then dropping it from a height sufficient to cause such injury).
Think long term.... what are these people going to be using in 15 to 20 years time? If the kinds of tech that could get around this are outlawed now, then it will become increasingly difficult to acquire as the years go by.... as standards evolve and change, older hardware will probably eventually cease to be interoperable with the more current communication technologies.
Of course, I'm aware that I am probably giving the people who would come up with this kind of bill proposal far more credit than they deserve.
Of course, "smartphone vendors" wouldn't be able to decrypt voice calls sent using VoIP software that was encrypted outside their domain of influence.
Such software would be outlawed, clearly.... it won't stop people who expressly want it from getting it, but it creates a barrier for entry such that most law-abiding and not very technologically competent people will simply not want to be bothered with the inconvenience of bypassing it.
Of course, in the end, the only people that they will be able to spy on are the people who haven't cared enough about their privacy to worry about it and are probably not doing something that the feds are trying to catch anyways, which means that it will do absolute diddly at helping law enforcement.
A Linux user that goes back to Windows will probably be much more likely to trust a download source than they should be
Just the opposite, I would think. A Linux user that goes back to Windows is much more likely to only be installing applications from a limited number of providers that they have deemed trustworthy, having become accustomed to doing so in Linux.
It doesn't uniquely identify a person using it, but then neither does a license plate.... a license plate only at best will identify the owner of the car.
While it might initially look that way, I think that this exposes two problems, the first is the kid's fault and the second is the schools. The first problem is with people who use automated spellchecking and do not proof read what they wrote before committing it as a final work. The second is that it shows it is probably a mistake to assume that anything that is output from a computer which might looks peculiar is necessarily anything that resembles what the person that allegedly wrote it actually meant to say. Society is already adapting in this respect to text messaging, because of how outlandishly bad autocorrect goofups can be, but we haven't really similarly adapted to such spellchecking corrections on home computers or laptops.
Really? Do they at least also have a thunderbolt->headphone adapter so that people can use their own choice of headphones, or are they locking people into using either bluetooth-only or lightning headphones?
Also, there are other devices than headphones that plug into the headphone jack...
When looking at the big picture, and taking its overall negative impact on a person's health over a person's entire lifetime, quite possibly.... in terms of the immediate effects on one's motor skills, not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that you failed to notice the point that I had made in my very first remark, where I explicitly said that it may be easier for Netflix to police situations where people are using fake billing addresses out of country in cases where it *DOES* happen, if they are so inclined.
So to the matter at hand, I didn't lie, I really made an overbroad generalization. It may indeed be possible, as you have asserted, but it is almost certainly detectable for any card issuer I've heard of, and as such, impractical for any purposes of trying to actually hide where a person lives, or at least their country of origin, and why it should still generally be adequate for Netflix.
But you've said you don't believe it, or me... so google credit card number BIN and research it yourself. There is actually *FAR* more information that can be extracted from a credit card number than just the issuer, bank, and account number. Among the fields in the first half-dozen or so digits (depending on the issuer), a code for the specific country of origin is there as well. You've asked me for proof, and I've tried to offer the back-up on that point that I know exists, what evidence can YOU offer that suggests that the country code that is part of the BIN is *NOT* tied to specific country that the user acquired it in?
Pay as you go credit cards are also easily identifiable as such from the first 6 digits. Oh and the country of origin is still identifiable. Sure, you can buy a pay-as-you go credit card while in another country and use it to your hearts content from somewhere else, but then you are talking about doing something that requires doing real work.
Right now, people watch out-of-nation Netflix because it's easy to do, when something is inconvenient enough you won't stop the people that are determined to still do it, but those tend to represent a pretty small percentage of the population.
Oh, and the unrealistic expectation that either a system should be absolutely perfect or else not utilized at all is a classic false dilemma fallacy. Certainly it would probably be far more effective than trying to ban known VPN's.
That assumption is incorrect. A bank may be multinational, but barring jumping through a lot of hoops to get a card from a bank outside of the nation where one lives, the card will still be issued from a bank in the user's own country and reflected in the first few digits of the card.
The first few (I think it's 6) digits on the card will still indicate which country the issuing bank happens to be in. Getting a credit card from a bank located in another country from where you actually live tends to be rather complicated.
Name one that Netflix accepts.
I feel compelled to point out that most dinnerware manufactures make a full line of dinnerware options, including plates, breakfast bowls, cups, as well as cream jugs and sugar bowls, all of which are no less capable of achieving flight than their line of saucers, however briefly said flight might be.
Encryption is bad only if you presume that either the only, or at least the far most likely reason anyone might want something to be hidden from others is because they are doing or have done something wrong.
Except that this is *FAR* from true. Insisting that people shouldn't try and hide things from people who might claim to mean well is equivalent suggesting that people really shouldn't have privacy at all, and it is nothing less than absurd to suggest that nobody should have any rights to any privacy, ever, unless you do things like outlaw clothing (which may hide a person's body from public view), for example. With a flawed premise, the entire argument for suggesting that strong encryption should be outlawed falls apart.
If they insist on restricting content based on location, just use the friggin' geographical location of the subscriber's billing address. If the subscriber happens to be in another country than their billing address, so what? That's still where they are billed, so it shouldn't matter. As a marketable feature, this also gives subscribers access to all of the same content that they would enjoy at home while they may be visiting another country. Note further, that I say *BILLING* address, not mailing address. While getting an out of country mailing address to send stuff to for drop shipment or even for out-of-country pickup is quite common (I have one myself), that's not at all the same thing as a person's billing address.
While this won't stop people who explicitly decide to try and get a credit card with an out-of-country billing address to get around this, I do not think that such conditions should hardly be considered the norm until proven otherwise, and it might even be easier for them to police anyways, if they are so inclined.
In embedded v8, it is a headache and a half to create custom types that vitally need to perform some task such as releasing used memory held by a native implementation upon cleanup. In v8, if you simply want to have some cleanup code get called, you have to allocate a Persistent along with your data, explicitly invoke SetWeak on that Persistent to specify the finalize callback, and then make sure that you keep the allocated persistent around for the lifetime of your custom object (which means that your finalize callback needs to release the memory allocated for the persistent itself in addition to releasing memory used by your custom type). In Chakracore, it appears that you can pass a finalize method directly to JsCreateExternalObject when you create the javascript value... no messing around with the extra storage that v8 needs for persistent types that are not allocated on the stack.
Also, the ChakraCore API also has an advantage of having a smaller and much simpler C API than v8's C++-only API.
Additionally, I have to say that Microsoft's documentation of Chakra's javascript runtime kicks ass over Google's documentation of v8's.
I haven't had a chance to play with Chakra yet myself, having only perused the API docs so far, and the projects that I'm working on that use embedded v8 are far too v8-entrenched to migrate them to using another javascript engine, but I will strongly consider using it in any future new projects.
Chakracore uses the standard MIT license, afaik.
I am admittedly just as guilty as those writing the headlines saying that they are "death-proof", for saying that they claimed they will be "accident-proof".
I would suggest that their claim is probably even physically possible, to the extent that the vehicle has not been placed in artificially contrived circumstances (such as physically lifting the car off of the ground and then dropping it from a height sufficient to cause such injury).
I don't even think it's a marketing term, only a term being used by third parties with respect to Volvo's claims about making it accident-proof.
I believe that you overestimate both the intelligence and resolve, as well as greatly underestimate the apathy of the general population.
Oh.... Ha.
What gives a fish any right to say what humans are "supposed" to do?
Think long term.... what are these people going to be using in 15 to 20 years time? If the kinds of tech that could get around this are outlawed now, then it will become increasingly difficult to acquire as the years go by.... as standards evolve and change, older hardware will probably eventually cease to be interoperable with the more current communication technologies.
Of course, I'm aware that I am probably giving the people who would come up with this kind of bill proposal far more credit than they deserve.
Such software would be outlawed, clearly.... it won't stop people who expressly want it from getting it, but it creates a barrier for entry such that most law-abiding and not very technologically competent people will simply not want to be bothered with the inconvenience of bypassing it.
Of course, in the end, the only people that they will be able to spy on are the people who haven't cared enough about their privacy to worry about it and are probably not doing something that the feds are trying to catch anyways, which means that it will do absolute diddly at helping law enforcement.
New for this year, but 12th on the list.
While it's certainly not a particularly strong password, I'm honestly surprised that something like that would make a list of the 25 worst.
Says who?
Just the opposite, I would think. A Linux user that goes back to Windows is much more likely to only be installing applications from a limited number of providers that they have deemed trustworthy, having become accustomed to doing so in Linux.
It's called an IP address.
It doesn't uniquely identify a person using it, but then neither does a license plate.... a license plate only at best will identify the owner of the car.
I might suggest that it would be a very a poor reflection of your character that such an observation might genuinely influence your judgement.
[nt]
While it might initially look that way, I think that this exposes two problems, the first is the kid's fault and the second is the schools. The first problem is with people who use automated spellchecking and do not proof read what they wrote before committing it as a final work. The second is that it shows it is probably a mistake to assume that anything that is output from a computer which might looks peculiar is necessarily anything that resembles what the person that allegedly wrote it actually meant to say. Society is already adapting in this respect to text messaging, because of how outlandishly bad autocorrect goofups can be, but we haven't really similarly adapted to such spellchecking corrections on home computers or laptops.
Really? Do they at least also have a thunderbolt->headphone adapter so that people can use their own choice of headphones, or are they locking people into using either bluetooth-only or lightning headphones?
Also, there are other devices than headphones that plug into the headphone jack...
When looking at the big picture, and taking its overall negative impact on a person's health over a person's entire lifetime, quite possibly.... in terms of the immediate effects on one's motor skills, not so much.