Relying on Office365 working in a non-Microsoft browser? Absolutely.
It works fine in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari, with no substantial differences between those and IE (if anything, non-IE is faster). I haven't tried Konquerer, but it might work passably even there.
It might work. John Carmack complained a few years ago about having to work through PC drivers as opposed to the essentially direct access to hardware that he got on consoles, and how essentially the exact same code path on PCs took far longer because the driver imposed all kinds of checks and penalties that he felt were unnecessary. If developers were to get access to a lower level through improved drivers, it might help boost performance. The drivers would still be needed to prevent them from doing certain things that might lock up (or outright damage) a card and crash the system, but every little bit closer to the hardware that can still be handled safely is better for everyone.
And people routinely get their roles wrong. Gates hasn't been involved in tech at a hands-on level in more than 20 years, with some quotes by him suggesting the last line of code in a shipped product written by him was around 1989, give or take a year. Jobs may have been involved more recently than that (I'm not sure what he did at NeXT from day to day), but the reality is that both were primarily managers that oversaw successful growth of their companies while others did most of the grunt work.
Within the IT field, many of these names are very well-known, and their products are often even better known. Just because a random person on the street doesn't know them off the top of their heads doesn't mean they're completely obscure. Dave Kennedy regularly appears on cable outlets, so his face (if not his name) will be familiar to viewers there. Same thing with Brian Krebs. Infosec people are becoming better known as time goes by. What was once a nearly anonymous swath of researchers even within the field is developing publicity and getting their names and faces out to the public. That will happen more as people become more aware of security issues.
The same functionality that was there before the purchase by Rapid7 is still there, plus a little more, in the Community edition. I'm struggling to think of many people in the pen testing community that make use of the paid versions, in part because we can script most of the functionality we need using the unpaid versions--when we use it at all. It still has a place in the toolset, but it's not the end-all, be-all that it was once perceived to be. Core Impact had the same lead-up and fall-off within the community.
There is no one utility, framework, or platform that can provide a complete pen testing architecture. As much time as I spend in Kali, I have to open up the Windows VMs from time to time, and I've even had to spin up CentOS VMs because instructions for some esoteric utility are written for only that and I have neither the time nor the patience to figure out how to get it to work in a Debian environment. I still use metasploit fairly extensively, but I don't really spend more than maybe 10%-20% of my time in it on average, and it's usually to automate something I've found via other means.
Maybe not tip-of-the-tongue names, but they appear on TV regularly and their works are published by most of the major media companies. Within the security field, virtually everyone knows their names. HD Moore is up there, too, having really shown what a security framework can do. Many other frameworks have followed.
And AC would still be wrong. I just created a new account and didn't provide a phone number. It asks for one during registration and encourages its use for account recovery purposes, but does not require one and doesn't require anything other than tabbing through the field or clicking elsewhere.
SHA-3 is extremely new, and while it's passed multiple reviews, it hasn't undergone the same scrutiny that SHA2 has undergone. Trusting SHA3 at this point may be somewhat naive, especially since even the best attacks against SHA2, which has undergone much more intensive review, don't reduce its strength very far.
Given that almost all HTTPS sites are mapped 1:1 domain:IP address, it's not that hard to figure out what site it's connecting to. That brings some level of predictability, especially if one already has access to the site via another account, or it uses an established framework.
Watching unencrypted traffic from your browser is going to hand over some of that information. It's not necessarily that one can simply look at a payload length and quickly determine the password length, but that by using various known factors, a fairly educated guess can be made. That at least starts narrowing down the possibilities.
Some of this is highly predictable. A given application could use only a single cookie, and that cookie could always be of exactly the same length. There might be some variation in the headers such as Content-Length, but for password submissions, this is unlikely to vary by more than a character or two. Predictability could be extremely high.
The problem with letting things get stable is that, compared to the average user experience in Windows, Linux is still far, far behind. It's improved dramatically in recent years, largely because various devs stopped being content with the status quo and started pushing in other directions.
I use Windows, OSX, and Linux daily. In Linux, I primarily use Fedora, CentOS, Ubuntu, and Kali. I have KDE running in Fedora and CentOS, Gnome in Ubuntu, and Cinnamon in Kali. I've watched how they've changed over the years, and while some pushed too many boundaries at once (KDE4 got worse in my mind than Gnome 3, and then KDE started dialing back defaults), other apps have tried very hard to move up to the Microsoft level of usability. Some still have a long way to go, but those changes make the move more palatable.
Your frustrations with Pulse Audio are understandable. I spent far too many hours trying to get that to work properly even with commodity hardware, and it still crashed regularly. More recently, though, I barely notice that it's there. Likewise, I run into far fewer overall driver problems than I used to, with even cheap hardware on borderline-throw-away systems being supported out of the box.
We have to separate our habits as long-time Linux users from the usability of the masses. They want simplicity. No one should ever have to tell a novice, "All you do is open a shell, use vi to load this config file, and then make these changes." That should always be an option, but it shouldn't be mandatory for any but the most esoteric of settings. (Browsers have a great way around this using things like about:config to get at certain settings.) Someone likes remote X sessions? That's fine and they can continue using them, but it can't stand in the way of the necessary rewrite that became Wayland. Systemd is a more understandable problem, but we still need to not get so furious about it, because it makes everyone look bad and people don't want to be part of that fight, and that means not using Linux in some cases.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has continued to make it far easier to do many things, especially remote desktops and centralized app configuration. There still isn't anything in the FOSS world to really rival Exchange for growth, features, and usability, and most of the games are stuck in the 90s regarding their looks. (Valve has helped a lot on this front, but the drivers remain the biggest hurdle, and that's not something most devs can help with.)
The gap is narrowing, but we have to accept that the changes that are happening are necessary if we ever want to see the fabled Year of the Linux Desktop. We're going to have to accept concessions like running Office 365 on Linux until we can get comparable services together. Microsoft's move to make Windows nearly free of charge to most people was a brilliant marketing move, and now that it's accepted roving per-person licenses for much of its software usable across multiple devices, it has an even stronger position. The FOSS movement has to catch up to the features provided and move beyond them to provide something compelling.
I don't see Linux even getting to the 5% mark for desktops/notebooks by the end of the decade, but it does have a chance to move beyond the minuscule market it has. Opening up to changes is part of that, but so is becoming not so grumpy about changes and airing religious wars over niche things.
Not really, as they'll filter that out pretty fast. The systems doing those searches are a lot more intelligent than simple regex checks, and can factor other contextual clues into it. Just look at what Google does: they factor recent searches into new searches, so results related to recent searches (especially those in the last few minutes) appear higher in the list. I'm sure the government has something at least as good at contextual clues, possibly even provided by Google itself.
Apparently, it's one of the hardest transitions for pilots to make when going to the B-52. The lack of glass cockpits or flying a plane with very different aerodynamics (it uses spoilerons instead of ailerons, so it handles something more like a glider in some ways) is supposed to be comparatively easy to not snapping the plane around just before touchdown, and holding that crab all the way down the runway, looking out a side window in some cases. I know it would weird me out for a while.
I think the complexity comes because of the extremely long wings that droop very low. When you kick the plane around, you increase the speed of one wing and decrease the speed of the other. This increases lift on the one side and decreases lift on the other, resulting in a roll. This can be compensated by rolling to the other side, but given how low the wing droops (airliners generally have wings that angle upward toward the tips), this presents a danger of overcompensating and digging in the outrigger gear at the wingtip. Coming in flat is simpler and safer, even if it mandates a more complicated landing gear system than would otherwise be required.
Supermarket trolleys have castering wheels that align themselves to the path of least resistance. The landing gear of a B-52 are actually steered into position, and the plane holds the crab all the way down the runway.
Correction from info posted by bws111: The votes I posted were for the initial passage. The votes bws111 posted were for the reconciliation form of the Act. Those are more technically correct.
The motorcade wouldn't stop or significantly slow down for that. It may change its path, but there are few reasons for a significant change in planned speeds because it could jeopardize the safety of the motorcade (slower targets are easier to hit).
The Federal Reserve Act was passed 287-85 by the House on September 18, 1913, and passed 54-34 by the Senate on December 18, 1913. President Wilson signed it on December 23, 1913.
It is that simple. The area described matches that of the DC SFR (Special Flight Rules area), which extends 30 nautical miles from the Washington (DCA) VOR (Latitude: 3851'34"N, Longitude: 7702'11"W). As complicated as the FAA can make things, they keep most things as simple as possible.
SkyVector can help you there, though it's not authoritative.
TFRs (Temporary Flight Restriction areas, though some aren't all that temporary--Disneyland has had one since the 1990s) and SFRs (Special Flight Rules areas) are outlined in red, and while they don't always get sporting events, TFRs due to fires usually do go up.
Entire restaurants can't be outsourced, but there are companies that provide order-taking services where the person actually taking the order is sitting hundreds or thousands of miles away. They enter the order into the computer and it gets relayed back to the restaurant for local employees to make. The service costs less than an employee taking the orders because the person actually taking the orders will get shifted to a different restaurant during quiet times. There's no technical reason that this can't be done by someone overseas for even less money.
I prefer FiveThirtyEight to Real Clear Politics. As they point out frequently, national polls mean little or nothing in the primary race because primary elections don't work the way polls do. The rules are also malleable right up to the moment before the actual selection takes place at the convention.
FiveThirtyEight places a great deal of weight on what it calls the Endorsement Primary. This is a points system where each endorsement of a candidate by a member of the House of Representatives is worth one point, each Senator's endorsement is worth five points, and each governor's is worth 10 points. By this scale, there are theoretically up to 1435 points to award, though members of one party are unlikely to endorse someone from another party. In any case, Clinton leads the Endorsement Primary for Democrats by 447 to Sanders's mere 2 points (and O'Malley has one point). Republicans are a much more mixed bag with Bush at 41, Rubio at 29, Christie at 25, and Huckabee at 24. Everyone else is at 15 or fewer points (Trump and Carson have zero), and only 168 points worth of endorsements have even been made among candidates still in the race, so there's still a lot of wait-and-see going on.
I expect the party will push for some of the others to drop out to make the Iowa slate a little cleaner, but Iowa and New Hampshire are worthless as predictors of the nation, doing little better than chance at predicting the actual nominee. They act as filters: if you can't make a halfway decent showing there, you're probably not going to do it elsewhere. But ultimately, the party has a great deal of control by pushing superdelegates to vote in a certain way, and even a seemingly close match-up going into the convention could turn out to be a nearly runaway victory for whomever the Establishment prefers.
Clinton is almost a lock. Something hugely catastrophic would need to happen for her to fail to get the nomination.
Jeb Bush is another story. He's faltering, but he may also be waiting for others to tear down Trump and Carson before trying to mount a serious comeback. Still, Rubio seems to be slowly becoming the Establishment favorite, and that counts for a lot.
Al-Qaeda affiliates and ISIS actually do fight each other. ISIS and al-Nusra Front have been at opposition for a while. Remember that ISIS came out of what was al-Qaeda in Iraq, and announced a merger with al-Nusra without discussing it with anyone else. Al-Nusra told them to get bent, AQI declared they were going ahead with it, Zawahiri told everyone to chill out, and AQI announced it was breaking from al-Qaeda. Al-Nusra has remained allied with al-Qaeda, and sometimes coordinates with the Free Syrian Army and other rebel groups, especially when fighting ISIS.
This is one of the weirdest things about ISIS: even al-Qaeda is against them, says they go too far, and thinks they're more extreme than the Quran allows. They have basically the entire world--including most terrorists--against them.
Slashdot Mirror
LaTeX forumulae? No.
Relying on Office365 working in a non-Microsoft browser? Absolutely.
It works fine in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari, with no substantial differences between those and IE (if anything, non-IE is faster). I haven't tried Konquerer, but it might work passably even there.
Serving up ads above or next to a message isn't the same as adding an ad to the message.
It might work. John Carmack complained a few years ago about having to work through PC drivers as opposed to the essentially direct access to hardware that he got on consoles, and how essentially the exact same code path on PCs took far longer because the driver imposed all kinds of checks and penalties that he felt were unnecessary. If developers were to get access to a lower level through improved drivers, it might help boost performance. The drivers would still be needed to prevent them from doing certain things that might lock up (or outright damage) a card and crash the system, but every little bit closer to the hardware that can still be handled safely is better for everyone.
And people routinely get their roles wrong. Gates hasn't been involved in tech at a hands-on level in more than 20 years, with some quotes by him suggesting the last line of code in a shipped product written by him was around 1989, give or take a year. Jobs may have been involved more recently than that (I'm not sure what he did at NeXT from day to day), but the reality is that both were primarily managers that oversaw successful growth of their companies while others did most of the grunt work.
Within the IT field, many of these names are very well-known, and their products are often even better known. Just because a random person on the street doesn't know them off the top of their heads doesn't mean they're completely obscure. Dave Kennedy regularly appears on cable outlets, so his face (if not his name) will be familiar to viewers there. Same thing with Brian Krebs. Infosec people are becoming better known as time goes by. What was once a nearly anonymous swath of researchers even within the field is developing publicity and getting their names and faces out to the public. That will happen more as people become more aware of security issues.
The same functionality that was there before the purchase by Rapid7 is still there, plus a little more, in the Community edition. I'm struggling to think of many people in the pen testing community that make use of the paid versions, in part because we can script most of the functionality we need using the unpaid versions--when we use it at all. It still has a place in the toolset, but it's not the end-all, be-all that it was once perceived to be. Core Impact had the same lead-up and fall-off within the community.
There is no one utility, framework, or platform that can provide a complete pen testing architecture. As much time as I spend in Kali, I have to open up the Windows VMs from time to time, and I've even had to spin up CentOS VMs because instructions for some esoteric utility are written for only that and I have neither the time nor the patience to figure out how to get it to work in a Debian environment. I still use metasploit fairly extensively, but I don't really spend more than maybe 10%-20% of my time in it on average, and it's usually to automate something I've found via other means.
Brian Krebs? Bruce Schneier? Dave Kennedy?
Maybe not tip-of-the-tongue names, but they appear on TV regularly and their works are published by most of the major media companies. Within the security field, virtually everyone knows their names. HD Moore is up there, too, having really shown what a security framework can do. Many other frameworks have followed.
And AC would still be wrong. I just created a new account and didn't provide a phone number. It asks for one during registration and encourages its use for account recovery purposes, but does not require one and doesn't require anything other than tabbing through the field or clicking elsewhere.
Hangouts works just fine in Linux.
SHA-3 is extremely new, and while it's passed multiple reviews, it hasn't undergone the same scrutiny that SHA2 has undergone. Trusting SHA3 at this point may be somewhat naive, especially since even the best attacks against SHA2, which has undergone much more intensive review, don't reduce its strength very far.
Given that almost all HTTPS sites are mapped 1:1 domain:IP address, it's not that hard to figure out what site it's connecting to. That brings some level of predictability, especially if one already has access to the site via another account, or it uses an established framework.
Watching unencrypted traffic from your browser is going to hand over some of that information. It's not necessarily that one can simply look at a payload length and quickly determine the password length, but that by using various known factors, a fairly educated guess can be made. That at least starts narrowing down the possibilities.
Some of this is highly predictable. A given application could use only a single cookie, and that cookie could always be of exactly the same length. There might be some variation in the headers such as Content-Length, but for password submissions, this is unlikely to vary by more than a character or two. Predictability could be extremely high.
Some protocols are even more predictable.
The problem with letting things get stable is that, compared to the average user experience in Windows, Linux is still far, far behind. It's improved dramatically in recent years, largely because various devs stopped being content with the status quo and started pushing in other directions.
I use Windows, OSX, and Linux daily. In Linux, I primarily use Fedora, CentOS, Ubuntu, and Kali. I have KDE running in Fedora and CentOS, Gnome in Ubuntu, and Cinnamon in Kali. I've watched how they've changed over the years, and while some pushed too many boundaries at once (KDE4 got worse in my mind than Gnome 3, and then KDE started dialing back defaults), other apps have tried very hard to move up to the Microsoft level of usability. Some still have a long way to go, but those changes make the move more palatable.
Your frustrations with Pulse Audio are understandable. I spent far too many hours trying to get that to work properly even with commodity hardware, and it still crashed regularly. More recently, though, I barely notice that it's there. Likewise, I run into far fewer overall driver problems than I used to, with even cheap hardware on borderline-throw-away systems being supported out of the box.
We have to separate our habits as long-time Linux users from the usability of the masses. They want simplicity. No one should ever have to tell a novice, "All you do is open a shell, use vi to load this config file, and then make these changes." That should always be an option, but it shouldn't be mandatory for any but the most esoteric of settings. (Browsers have a great way around this using things like about:config to get at certain settings.) Someone likes remote X sessions? That's fine and they can continue using them, but it can't stand in the way of the necessary rewrite that became Wayland. Systemd is a more understandable problem, but we still need to not get so furious about it, because it makes everyone look bad and people don't want to be part of that fight, and that means not using Linux in some cases.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has continued to make it far easier to do many things, especially remote desktops and centralized app configuration. There still isn't anything in the FOSS world to really rival Exchange for growth, features, and usability, and most of the games are stuck in the 90s regarding their looks. (Valve has helped a lot on this front, but the drivers remain the biggest hurdle, and that's not something most devs can help with.)
The gap is narrowing, but we have to accept that the changes that are happening are necessary if we ever want to see the fabled Year of the Linux Desktop. We're going to have to accept concessions like running Office 365 on Linux until we can get comparable services together. Microsoft's move to make Windows nearly free of charge to most people was a brilliant marketing move, and now that it's accepted roving per-person licenses for much of its software usable across multiple devices, it has an even stronger position. The FOSS movement has to catch up to the features provided and move beyond them to provide something compelling.
I don't see Linux even getting to the 5% mark for desktops/notebooks by the end of the decade, but it does have a chance to move beyond the minuscule market it has. Opening up to changes is part of that, but so is becoming not so grumpy about changes and airing religious wars over niche things.
Not really, as they'll filter that out pretty fast. The systems doing those searches are a lot more intelligent than simple regex checks, and can factor other contextual clues into it. Just look at what Google does: they factor recent searches into new searches, so results related to recent searches (especially those in the last few minutes) appear higher in the list. I'm sure the government has something at least as good at contextual clues, possibly even provided by Google itself.
Apparently, it's one of the hardest transitions for pilots to make when going to the B-52. The lack of glass cockpits or flying a plane with very different aerodynamics (it uses spoilerons instead of ailerons, so it handles something more like a glider in some ways) is supposed to be comparatively easy to not snapping the plane around just before touchdown, and holding that crab all the way down the runway, looking out a side window in some cases. I know it would weird me out for a while.
I think the complexity comes because of the extremely long wings that droop very low. When you kick the plane around, you increase the speed of one wing and decrease the speed of the other. This increases lift on the one side and decreases lift on the other, resulting in a roll. This can be compensated by rolling to the other side, but given how low the wing droops (airliners generally have wings that angle upward toward the tips), this presents a danger of overcompensating and digging in the outrigger gear at the wingtip. Coming in flat is simpler and safer, even if it mandates a more complicated landing gear system than would otherwise be required.
Supermarket trolleys have castering wheels that align themselves to the path of least resistance. The landing gear of a B-52 are actually steered into position, and the plane holds the crab all the way down the runway.
Example video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Correction from info posted by bws111: The votes I posted were for the initial passage. The votes bws111 posted were for the reconciliation form of the Act. Those are more technically correct.
The motorcade wouldn't stop or significantly slow down for that. It may change its path, but there are few reasons for a significant change in planned speeds because it could jeopardize the safety of the motorcade (slower targets are easier to hit).
The Federal Reserve Act was passed 287-85 by the House on September 18, 1913, and passed 54-34 by the Senate on December 18, 1913. President Wilson signed it on December 23, 1913.
It is that simple. The area described matches that of the DC SFR (Special Flight Rules area), which extends 30 nautical miles from the Washington (DCA) VOR (Latitude: 3851'34"N, Longitude: 7702'11"W). As complicated as the FAA can make things, they keep most things as simple as possible.
SkyVector can help you there, though it's not authoritative.
TFRs (Temporary Flight Restriction areas, though some aren't all that temporary--Disneyland has had one since the 1990s) and SFRs (Special Flight Rules areas) are outlined in red, and while they don't always get sporting events, TFRs due to fires usually do go up.
Entire restaurants can't be outsourced, but there are companies that provide order-taking services where the person actually taking the order is sitting hundreds or thousands of miles away. They enter the order into the computer and it gets relayed back to the restaurant for local employees to make. The service costs less than an employee taking the orders because the person actually taking the orders will get shifted to a different restaurant during quiet times. There's no technical reason that this can't be done by someone overseas for even less money.
I prefer FiveThirtyEight to Real Clear Politics. As they point out frequently, national polls mean little or nothing in the primary race because primary elections don't work the way polls do. The rules are also malleable right up to the moment before the actual selection takes place at the convention.
FiveThirtyEight places a great deal of weight on what it calls the Endorsement Primary. This is a points system where each endorsement of a candidate by a member of the House of Representatives is worth one point, each Senator's endorsement is worth five points, and each governor's is worth 10 points. By this scale, there are theoretically up to 1435 points to award, though members of one party are unlikely to endorse someone from another party. In any case, Clinton leads the Endorsement Primary for Democrats by 447 to Sanders's mere 2 points (and O'Malley has one point). Republicans are a much more mixed bag with Bush at 41, Rubio at 29, Christie at 25, and Huckabee at 24. Everyone else is at 15 or fewer points (Trump and Carson have zero), and only 168 points worth of endorsements have even been made among candidates still in the race, so there's still a lot of wait-and-see going on.
I expect the party will push for some of the others to drop out to make the Iowa slate a little cleaner, but Iowa and New Hampshire are worthless as predictors of the nation, doing little better than chance at predicting the actual nominee. They act as filters: if you can't make a halfway decent showing there, you're probably not going to do it elsewhere. But ultimately, the party has a great deal of control by pushing superdelegates to vote in a certain way, and even a seemingly close match-up going into the convention could turn out to be a nearly runaway victory for whomever the Establishment prefers.
Clinton is almost a lock. Something hugely catastrophic would need to happen for her to fail to get the nomination.
Jeb Bush is another story. He's faltering, but he may also be waiting for others to tear down Trump and Carson before trying to mount a serious comeback. Still, Rubio seems to be slowly becoming the Establishment favorite, and that counts for a lot.
He's a federal judge. He was appointed, not elected.
Al-Qaeda affiliates and ISIS actually do fight each other. ISIS and al-Nusra Front have been at opposition for a while. Remember that ISIS came out of what was al-Qaeda in Iraq, and announced a merger with al-Nusra without discussing it with anyone else. Al-Nusra told them to get bent, AQI declared they were going ahead with it, Zawahiri told everyone to chill out, and AQI announced it was breaking from al-Qaeda. Al-Nusra has remained allied with al-Qaeda, and sometimes coordinates with the Free Syrian Army and other rebel groups, especially when fighting ISIS.
This is one of the weirdest things about ISIS: even al-Qaeda is against them, says they go too far, and thinks they're more extreme than the Quran allows. They have basically the entire world--including most terrorists--against them.