Inside of windows would be impractical for most purposes because it could still easily get touched by people's hands, eventually wearing off.
And this nanotech is not trivial to make, so it's far too expensive to simply have it as a temporary coating.
The underlying concept is a good one... but they need to figure out a way to make it durable enough to cope with real-world handling conditions, or else it's useless for anything that has any possibility of being touched by anything solid.
If repeated authentication through passwords, by their own words, "isn't sufficient to keep users safe", then why on earth do they figure that a SINGLE authentication would be sufficient?
Even more... if some action X is wrong, but you are in a situation where you end up wanting to do it, but you end up ultimately stopping yourself because you know that the action is wrong, and don't ever follow through with the action... isn't that a *GOOD* thing?
Even assuming that insulting the king is wrong, and assuming that this man ever intended to, he still stopped himself short of actually doing it. Again, even assuming that there was something inherently wrong with what he is alleged to have nearly done, it is nothing less than a complete mockery of justice to hold a person accountable for something that they explicitly did *NOT* do.
The Apple ][+ was the very first computer I ever really programmed on to any significant degree, which I used at school, and I had a//e at home myself in 1984.
To date, it remains the only computer that I ever worked with which I felt I understood thoroughly. I had a reference book "What's Where in the Apple" which documented all of the Apple's i/o memory location/blocks, zero-page addresses, and practically every ROM procedure entry point, which I ended up practically memorizing.
I have many fond memories of writing for that platform, and I doubt I'll ever forget it.
Heck, I still remember some of the hex opcodes for 6502 instructions: EA was NOP, 4C was JMP, 20 was JSR.... and 60 was RTS.
I remember I was sad when Woz decided to leave Apple, because I knew, even then, that meant that Apple was probably not going to take the Apple// line any further.
Okay, it's not exactly the same as what was in the book 1984,but they still arrested him only for what he was thinking (in actuality, really only what they believe that he thought, but even giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were right, this still amounts to arresting somebody because of what they were thinking).
Putting that aside for a moment, the point that the court really needs to consider here is that he DIDN'T.... period. Even if they are entirely right about everything, and he really thought about it, or even if he really wanted to.... he DIDN'T.
So, in the end, again, assuming that they are entirely correct here, the only thing that they could ever hope to say is that he thought about doing what he was accused of.
Which, once the implications of that are realized by the population, I dare say that a not entirely percentage of them will also be guilty of.
It's my understanding that this kind of surface erodes relatively quickly, and thus rapidly loses its liquid repelling properties as it is handled or touched by other things that are solid in far too brief a time to be practical for anything but a temporary coating.
No... it is not. Using an ending of 'i' for the plural form from words where the singular form ends in 'us' comes from Latin, and is as such only applicable to Latin plurals. Virus is originally a Latin word, but in Latin could not itself possess a plural, because it did not denote a single thing. It is best likened to an English noun which does not have a quantity associated with it, such as "happiness" or "everything", and so does not make any sense to try to pluralize. If you are a native English speaker, trying to pluralize such words is going to probably sound sort of odd. That's because it's wrong. In modern English, we have have altered the conceptual meaning of the word virus so that it can refer to a unique thing, but because that is an English invention and not Latin, the plural follows English convention for pluralization and not Latin. Hence, viruses.
Right... but it still is the past.... however recent. I'll concede the point that it may have been less ambiguous to use the present tense, but I was actually only trying to imitate the style of this comment:
Users tended to love MSSE because it shut up and did its job
Did I somehow imply with my use of "wasn't", that I was implying never? Is there some form of past tense that is specific to the recent past only? Because I only know of the one.
when 60% or more of the posts so far attempt to make an extremely obvious joke about scissors? This article even says its from the what-no-scissors? department, so the joke isn't even that inventive.
For crying out loud... you guys call yourselves nerds?
What I want to know is what about the lizard and spock PC's.
You realize that each customer is often going to be using up multiple ports at one time, right? And owing to the inherent statefulness of each connection and resources that the NAT system will have to dedicate to maintaining that state, it imposes a rather severe upper limit on how many ports a single NAT device can actually utilize at once.
Okay, but UDP hole punching on a single NAT by more than a few people at a time would quickly saturate theNAT to the point that nobody using it would be able to establish conections with anybody. It's not a problem for a home user because the number of computer systems behind the home NAT is so small..
The core problem with NAT is that it cannot possibly ever scale to anything beyond a very tiny LAN, and why CGN is doomed to catastrophic failure.
If you never mentioned Scrabble anywhere in the marketing of the product, they wouldn't really have any sort of valid case against you in the first place. You suggest that one would somehow have to prove they weren't really scrabble tiles, but wouldn't the onus be on them to at least create some reasonable basis to conclude that they were? With different score values for several of the letters, I would think that such a claim would be considered very dubious.
And there are quite a few different games that use letter tiles with score values on them, after all... and only one of them actually uses a scrabble board. Although most typically use scrabble tiles, that choice is typically one made only for convenient availability of those tiles, and is not because such games are necessarily somehow related to or affiliated with scrabble or its distributors.
I wasn't disputing that I was wrong... The very fact that I was correcting myself was an explicit admission that I had already realized I was wrong. I was only clarifying the point on *why* had made the incorrect conclusion. And somehow, you interpreted this as "patronizing"?
To be fair... I didn't previously know Mattel distributed Scrabble outside of N.A... but I did know about Hasbro's ownership of it inside. The summary mentioned absolutely *NOTHING* about Mattel being the distributor of Scrabble outside of North America, while in the sentence just previous to mentioning Mattel, had referred to a specifically North American association, and giving no indication anywhere else that they were talking about something internationally in the first place. The article, unlike the summary, explicitly clarifies the point, giving sufficient reason to understand why Mattel would be mentioned after having just mentioned North America.
And I wasn't in a rush to try to be a smartass about anything, I had simply only expressed initial confusion (Note the "?" in the subject). Once I realized the error, I even followed it up with an admission of it... even before your comment, in fact. If you want to interpret being wrong as being an ass, well then, I can only remark that it must be pretty boring to only have perfect people who never make mistakes for friends.
Note, however, that to automatically punch any hole through a NAT always requires that you *SEND* a packet from your computer first. Listening for incoming connections does not, by itself, actually send anything. To anyone. Although some communication protocols are set up such that you must broadcast your intent to listen for an incoming connection before actually listening, such protocols are invariably application specific, and have very little to do with the way the Internet really works.
For TCP, you "punch a hole" in the NAT whenever you initiate an outgoing TCP connection (TCP sessions are bidirectional, so data can come in on the same connection after it's been intiated), but only the system with which the connection was initiated can send data through that hole, and as soon as you close that session, the hole is closed with it.
Skype uses a process called UDP hole punching to accept connections from outside a NAT, and this only works because both the caller and receiver have each established a connection with the Skype server first so that the caller can get the necessary information about the intended receiver. You cannot use TCP to accept incoming connections with Skype if you are behind a NAT.
In fact, there is no way at all to initiate a TCP session with a computer that is behind a NAT from outside of it without either a) manually punching a permanent hole in the NAT first, through which to accept incoming connections (you cannot use automatic hole punching for this), or b) hijacking another TCP connection to that machine through IP spoofing.
Your description of what happened seems to carry a tone of some sadness to it... almost bereavement, in fact.
I'm a bit curious, however... if you don't mind going into detail, could you describe what you mean by the "Oracle Way", and what was it about it that people detested so much?
I can't help but observe that the rate at which Java exploits started pouring forth really started skyrocketing after Oracle's acquisitiion of Sun.
I mean, seriously... look at the history. It shot up by multiple orders of magnitude in the first six months of 2010 alone, which was right after the Oracle acquisition. This, following a period where Java had actually been getting increasingly *more* secure over time, and as individual vulnerabilities were fixed, Java exploits were getting rarer and rarer.
But in 2010, it was like some sort of switch flipped. The number of exploits not only went up for the first time in many years, but it jumped at a rate previously unparallelled at any time in Java's history.
I never claimed NAT was a firewall... I just said that if you can't administer your NAT, then it's perfectly useless for running programs which might have to listen for incoming connections. The only remotely justifiable reason that even exists to use NAT at all is if you are allocated fewer globally visible IP's than you have systems that need to connect to the outside world. The only reason you would punch a hole in a NAT is if you needed a machine or service running inside the NAT to be somehow visible outside of it.
My point was that reporting a spokesperson from company A said they have no plans to change something made by company B is kind of... well... odd. My first thought was that it must have been some sort of mistake slip on the part of the editor, getting the name of the company wrong.
As the article itself more than adequately makes clear, however, this was not a mistake in reporting... the confusion was due to brevity in the summary itself, which gave no indication that they were talking about other countries while explicitly mentioning the north american scrabble players association.
All mentions of Britain are in the article, not the summary. My initial response was based only on what had been conveyed in the summary, which explicitly mentioned the North American Scrabble Player's Association, and nothing else to indicate that this was being talked about on other continents.
As I promptly self-responded a few minutes later, it was my bad for hitting "post" before bothering to read the article.
The NAT can't open a hole for an incoming packet to a device unless that device has actually sent OUT a packet first, so that the NAT knows about it. Otherwise, the NAT wouldn't have any idea which device to forward any incoming packet to, and would probably simply drop it. Opening a socket on a machine to listen for incoming connections does not actually send anything to anyone, so the NAT wouldn't even have any way to know about it, and everyone else wouldn't know which port to try to use to talk to the computer even if it did
So.... how would a remote system know which port it is supposed to try to connect to through a NAT? What if just two people behind the same NAT are trying to run the same sort of program, and are both trying to accept a connection from outside?
NAT breaks the peer-to-peer communication paradigm that the Internet was built on, and at carrier grade level, this will spell no end of problems for anyone who does anything more sophisticated with their internet connection than using http, or collecting email.
Slashdot Mirror
Inside of windows would be impractical for most purposes because it could still easily get touched by people's hands, eventually wearing off.
And this nanotech is not trivial to make, so it's far too expensive to simply have it as a temporary coating.
The underlying concept is a good one... but they need to figure out a way to make it durable enough to cope with real-world handling conditions, or else it's useless for anything that has any possibility of being touched by anything solid.
If repeated authentication through passwords, by their own words, "isn't sufficient to keep users safe", then why on earth do they figure that a SINGLE authentication would be sufficient?
Even more... if some action X is wrong, but you are in a situation where you end up wanting to do it, but you end up ultimately stopping yourself because you know that the action is wrong, and don't ever follow through with the action... isn't that a *GOOD* thing?
Even assuming that insulting the king is wrong, and assuming that this man ever intended to, he still stopped himself short of actually doing it. Again, even assuming that there was something inherently wrong with what he is alleged to have nearly done, it is nothing less than a complete mockery of justice to hold a person accountable for something that they explicitly did *NOT* do.
The Apple ][+ was the very first computer I ever really programmed on to any significant degree, which I used at school, and I had a //e at home myself in 1984.
To date, it remains the only computer that I ever worked with which I felt I understood thoroughly. I had a reference book "What's Where in the Apple" which documented all of the Apple's i/o memory location/blocks, zero-page addresses, and practically every ROM procedure entry point, which I ended up practically memorizing.
I have many fond memories of writing for that platform, and I doubt I'll ever forget it.
Heck, I still remember some of the hex opcodes for 6502 instructions: EA was NOP, 4C was JMP, 20 was JSR.... and 60 was RTS.
I remember I was sad when Woz decided to leave Apple, because I knew, even then, that meant that Apple was probably not going to take the Apple // line any further.
That's basically what this amounts to...
Okay, it's not exactly the same as what was in the book 1984,but they still arrested him only for what he was thinking (in actuality, really only what they believe that he thought, but even giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were right, this still amounts to arresting somebody because of what they were thinking).
Putting that aside for a moment, the point that the court really needs to consider here is that he DIDN'T.... period. Even if they are entirely right about everything, and he really thought about it, or even if he really wanted to.... he DIDN'T.
So, in the end, again, assuming that they are entirely correct here, the only thing that they could ever hope to say is that he thought about doing what he was accused of.
Which, once the implications of that are realized by the population, I dare say that a not entirely percentage of them will also be guilty of.
It's my understanding that this kind of surface erodes relatively quickly, and thus rapidly loses its liquid repelling properties as it is handled or touched by other things that are solid in far too brief a time to be practical for anything but a temporary coating.
No... it is not. Using an ending of 'i' for the plural form from words where the singular form ends in 'us' comes from Latin, and is as such only applicable to Latin plurals. Virus is originally a Latin word, but in Latin could not itself possess a plural, because it did not denote a single thing. It is best likened to an English noun which does not have a quantity associated with it, such as "happiness" or "everything", and so does not make any sense to try to pluralize. If you are a native English speaker, trying to pluralize such words is going to probably sound sort of odd. That's because it's wrong. In modern English, we have have altered the conceptual meaning of the word virus so that it can refer to a unique thing, but because that is an English invention and not Latin, the plural follows English convention for pluralization and not Latin. Hence, viruses.
Did I somehow imply with my use of "wasn't", that I was implying never? Is there some form of past tense that is specific to the recent past only? Because I only know of the one.
when 60% or more of the posts so far attempt to make an extremely obvious joke about scissors? This article even says its from the what-no-scissors? department, so the joke isn't even that inventive.
For crying out loud... you guys call yourselves nerds?
What I want to know is what about the lizard and spock PC's.
0.8% is pretty close to 1%. Just FYI. If you had said 2 or 3%, then yeah... you'd probably have been more accurate.
Except, I think, that the point of the article is that MSSE *WASN'T* doing its job.
Or at least not doing it well.
You realize that each customer is often going to be using up multiple ports at one time, right? And owing to the inherent statefulness of each connection and resources that the NAT system will have to dedicate to maintaining that state, it imposes a rather severe upper limit on how many ports a single NAT device can actually utilize at once.
Okay, but UDP hole punching on a single NAT by more than a few people at a time would quickly saturate theNAT to the point that nobody using it would be able to establish conections with anybody. It's not a problem for a home user because the number of computer systems behind the home NAT is so small..
The core problem with NAT is that it cannot possibly ever scale to anything beyond a very tiny LAN, and why CGN is doomed to catastrophic failure.
If you never mentioned Scrabble anywhere in the marketing of the product, they wouldn't really have any sort of valid case against you in the first place. You suggest that one would somehow have to prove they weren't really scrabble tiles, but wouldn't the onus be on them to at least create some reasonable basis to conclude that they were? With different score values for several of the letters, I would think that such a claim would be considered very dubious.
And there are quite a few different games that use letter tiles with score values on them, after all... and only one of them actually uses a scrabble board. Although most typically use scrabble tiles, that choice is typically one made only for convenient availability of those tiles, and is not because such games are necessarily somehow related to or affiliated with scrabble or its distributors.
I wasn't disputing that I was wrong... The very fact that I was correcting myself was an explicit admission that I had already realized I was wrong. I was only clarifying the point on *why* had made the incorrect conclusion. And somehow, you interpreted this as "patronizing"?
To be fair... I didn't previously know Mattel distributed Scrabble outside of N.A... but I did know about Hasbro's ownership of it inside. The summary mentioned absolutely *NOTHING* about Mattel being the distributor of Scrabble outside of North America, while in the sentence just previous to mentioning Mattel, had referred to a specifically North American association, and giving no indication anywhere else that they were talking about something internationally in the first place. The article, unlike the summary, explicitly clarifies the point, giving sufficient reason to understand why Mattel would be mentioned after having just mentioned North America.
And I wasn't in a rush to try to be a smartass about anything, I had simply only expressed initial confusion (Note the "?" in the subject). Once I realized the error, I even followed it up with an admission of it... even before your comment, in fact. If you want to interpret being wrong as being an ass, well then, I can only remark that it must be pretty boring to only have perfect people who never make mistakes for friends.
Note, however, that to automatically punch any hole through a NAT always requires that you *SEND* a packet from your computer first. Listening for incoming connections does not, by itself, actually send anything. To anyone. Although some communication protocols are set up such that you must broadcast your intent to listen for an incoming connection before actually listening, such protocols are invariably application specific, and have very little to do with the way the Internet really works.
For TCP, you "punch a hole" in the NAT whenever you initiate an outgoing TCP connection (TCP sessions are bidirectional, so data can come in on the same connection after it's been intiated), but only the system with which the connection was initiated can send data through that hole, and as soon as you close that session, the hole is closed with it.
Skype uses a process called UDP hole punching to accept connections from outside a NAT, and this only works because both the caller and receiver have each established a connection with the Skype server first so that the caller can get the necessary information about the intended receiver. You cannot use TCP to accept incoming connections with Skype if you are behind a NAT.
In fact, there is no way at all to initiate a TCP session with a computer that is behind a NAT from outside of it without either a) manually punching a permanent hole in the NAT first, through which to accept incoming connections (you cannot use automatic hole punching for this), or b) hijacking another TCP connection to that machine through IP spoofing.
Your description of what happened seems to carry a tone of some sadness to it... almost bereavement, in fact.
I'm a bit curious, however... if you don't mind going into detail, could you describe what you mean by the "Oracle Way", and what was it about it that people detested so much?
I can't help but observe that the rate at which Java exploits started pouring forth really started skyrocketing after Oracle's acquisitiion of Sun.
I mean, seriously... look at the history. It shot up by multiple orders of magnitude in the first six months of 2010 alone, which was right after the Oracle acquisition. This, following a period where Java had actually been getting increasingly *more* secure over time, and as individual vulnerabilities were fixed, Java exploits were getting rarer and rarer.
But in 2010, it was like some sort of switch flipped. The number of exploits not only went up for the first time in many years, but it jumped at a rate previously unparallelled at any time in Java's history.
What the fuck is going on?
2010
I never claimed NAT was a firewall... I just said that if you can't administer your NAT, then it's perfectly useless for running programs which might have to listen for incoming connections. The only remotely justifiable reason that even exists to use NAT at all is if you are allocated fewer globally visible IP's than you have systems that need to connect to the outside world. The only reason you would punch a hole in a NAT is if you needed a machine or service running inside the NAT to be somehow visible outside of it.
My point was that reporting a spokesperson from company A said they have no plans to change something made by company B is kind of... well... odd. My first thought was that it must have been some sort of mistake slip on the part of the editor, getting the name of the company wrong.
As the article itself more than adequately makes clear, however, this was not a mistake in reporting... the confusion was due to brevity in the summary itself, which gave no indication that they were talking about other countries while explicitly mentioning the north american scrabble players association.
All mentions of Britain are in the article, not the summary. My initial response was based only on what had been conveyed in the summary, which explicitly mentioned the North American Scrabble Player's Association, and nothing else to indicate that this was being talked about on other continents.
As I promptly self-responded a few minutes later, it was my bad for hitting "post" before bothering to read the article.
Or has the response to each one on this website typically been something along the lines of "No, and here's why not"?
The NAT can't open a hole for an incoming packet to a device unless that device has actually sent OUT a packet first, so that the NAT knows about it. Otherwise, the NAT wouldn't have any idea which device to forward any incoming packet to, and would probably simply drop it. Opening a socket on a machine to listen for incoming connections does not actually send anything to anyone, so the NAT wouldn't even have any way to know about it, and everyone else wouldn't know which port to try to use to talk to the computer even if it did
So.... how would a remote system know which port it is supposed to try to connect to through a NAT? What if just two people behind the same NAT are trying to run the same sort of program, and are both trying to accept a connection from outside?
NAT breaks the peer-to-peer communication paradigm that the Internet was built on, and at carrier grade level, this will spell no end of problems for anyone who does anything more sophisticated with their internet connection than using http, or collecting email.