But the question is, do you REALLY trust the car in front of you? What if it just randomly transmits a "braking now!" message in order to cause other cars in the vicinity to put on their brakes?
It would be cool to see what you could do with this to improve traffic flow and autopilot in a controlled environment, but out in the real world the trust issues get pretty dodgy.
No, if you don't want some information to be all over the internet, don't put it on the internet. At all!
Exactly. Digital information is ridiculously cheap and easy to copy. Facebook can take every conceivable measure to protect your privacy, but if one of your friends "goes rogue" or there's a server glitch and your private info leaks, it can be spread far and wide before you know it.
What you and I don't understand (assuming you're over 25) is that you can play fast and loose with your identity in order to throw the trolls, stalkers, griefers, and parents off of your trail. This should be second nature for any teenager by now, otherwise they would have NO privacy at all.
If your friends are blowing your cover when you post a photo of "yourself" playing lead guitar at your sister's Morroccan wedding, then you need to get cooler friends.
The web2.0 thingy is generally going to ferret out truthiness, yes, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. See related failure of Total Information Awareness initiative.
Its one thing to criticize software patents in general, but you shouldn't get specific with criticisms unless you know what you're talking about... it weakens the arguments you may be making.
You just described a novel process for responding to Slashdot articles.
I've never seen such an approach used here before, you should patent it before someone else does.
Ugh. The Kindle is one of the best-designed gadgets I've ever owned. I hope we don't suffer through a series of crappy re-thinkings based on some misplaced notion of hipness to try to sell readers to people who don't actually read books.
For instance, a touchscreen is an incredibly lame idea. You spend a _lot_ of time with an e-reader, ok? It takes hours and hours to read a book. Are you really going to want to read the another novel on that screen you've been dragging your finger across for the last three months? Yuck. Not a mobile phone, folks.
I was totally skeptical about the Kindle until I actually held one. It fits great in either hand, and unlike other readers I've seen you can use it one-handed. If you use your Kindle in the supplied leatherette case you're doing it wrong!
The Sony reader looks nicer in photos but doesn't have the same kind of balance. I'll take function over form on something like this any day.
I really wish IBM's metapad got out of the prototype stage.
That's what I always expected the iPod to turn into: a portable device that you could plug into a workstation or laptop to perform more complex tasks.
Perhaps when the iPhone graduates from RISC to x86 we can get mobile/desktop convergence like this, with processes migrating from one cpu to another as necessary.
My current NY license has a picture of someone who looks like me, but who was smashed under a falling piano, re-inflated with a gas station airhose, and then embalmed by a first-year mortician.
I'd give up a little privacy to not have to hand that photo over every time I enter a bar or a tall building. Oh well, at least I've still got a sense of irony.
You bring up a good point about cloning, but then drop it. Think of how much easier it is to clone an RFID than to create a full counterfeit driver's license.
If, as some commenters have mentioned, this is about group-scan, then there will be an excellent black market opportunity in cloned celebrity IDs. As in "Hey, Winona Ryder was at that protest. Did you see her?"
Relying on RFID (only) to positively ID someone is going to lead to gleeful mayhem when the hackers show up.
Broadcasters, distributors, and producers--and therefore the FCC--all have a stake in trying to restrict your viewing choices to those in your local market. Knowing a bit about how the TV business works, I would say that less choice is a feature, not a bug.
- Broadcasters want you to watch your local station because it makes their local advertising time more valuable. Esp. advertising on local programs like news.
- Distributors want you to watch your local station, because you will demand that your local station buy more programs.
- Certain producers want you to watch your local station so they can restrict what you see (a la NFL) or when you see it.
It's not a huge conspiracy or anything, but certainly the people driving the FCC (not audiences!) have reason to be glad that DTV puts stronger geographical limits on signal reception.
What are you talking about? SMS certianly does support Chinese characters, as there are literally BILLIONS of text messages been sent in China each day, almost all in Chinese.
Mod parent up.
Wife's Ukrainian cellphone expects entry in Cyrillic, with autocomplete.
There is absolutely no reason to suspect that Chinese cellphones don't speak Chinese. Heck, we're lucky they speak English, given the relative size of the markets.
The barrier to entry for snooping your data is very low, and getting lower with each new executive order. On the other hand the barrier to entry on snooping your data can be set arbitrarily high; you can choose anything from 56 bit single-DES to 2048 bit RC4.
I find this point fascinating, actually. It has never been easier to provably hide information, even as the social safeguards protecting privacy are being systematically dismantled.
In some ways, each of those Executive Orders is doing us a favor, by telling us again and again, "Encrypt your communications, or keep your trap shut."
An SSL Certificate can match multiple hostnames in SSLv3 and TLS, which are both old enough to be in use everywhere.
There are two methods, depending on what you want (and your level of paranoia): wildcards (match *.example.com) and "Subject Alternative Names" which can match any from a list of domain names.
The subject alt name is incredibly useful, as the certificate for a physical host can enumerate alternative names for each of its virtual hosts, even if they aren't subdomains of the host's domain.
I'm admin for a few domains that use gmail apps. None of mine have that option yet. It may be a rolling update.?
This is a worry, actually. If you use the CNAME method where mail.yourdomain.com is an alias of ghs.google.com, then I don't think they can generate a valid SSL certificate for you.
The best they could do is redirect http requests to mail.yourdomain.com to https://mail.google.com/yourdomain/ (or whatever scheme they use). Better than no security at all, but takes away some of the vanity factor.
At the local level it IS broadcast--it's when you go upstream that the efficiency really emerges. If you run a video server, you only stream packets to a few downstream nodes, rather than to each client that is watching the stream.
To test it properly you'd want a network with multiple subnets. Multicast packets should only be router to, and broadcast on, subnets where there is a listening client.
Nevertheless, even locally, broadcast is more efficient than unicast if more than one client wants to listen.
""I'm not going to lie: I used to smoke crack in there," said one homeless woman, Veronyka Cordner, nodding toward the toilet behind Pike Place Market. "But I won't even go inside that thing now. It's disgusting.""
I remember that as being the Best Quote Ever for the month of July. Thanks for re-posting!
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, Apple is smart.
They stick with NVidia GPUs, but give you two: when the first stops working you can switch to the backup.
They're so on it.
Email is all you need in a lot of systems. As in "Forgot your password? Click here to reset it." and a new password gets sent to your email address.
Game over.
Oddly enough, email accounts should have much stronger protection than just about anything else.
But the question is, do you REALLY trust the car in front of you? What if it just randomly transmits a "braking now!" message in order to cause other cars in the vicinity to put on their brakes?
It would be cool to see what you could do with this to improve traffic flow and autopilot in a controlled environment, but out in the real world the trust issues get pretty dodgy.
No, if you don't want some information to be all over the internet, don't put it on the internet. At all!
Exactly. Digital information is ridiculously cheap and easy to copy. Facebook can take every conceivable measure to protect your privacy, but if one of your friends "goes rogue" or there's a server glitch and your private info leaks, it can be spread far and wide before you know it.
Well duh, just give them your Slashot id. I see you all over the place on *this* site.
What you and I don't understand (assuming you're over 25) is that you can play fast and loose with your identity in order to throw the trolls, stalkers, griefers, and parents off of your trail. This should be second nature for any teenager by now, otherwise they would have NO privacy at all.
If your friends are blowing your cover when you post a photo of "yourself" playing lead guitar at your sister's Morroccan wedding, then you need to get cooler friends.
The web2.0 thingy is generally going to ferret out truthiness, yes, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. See related failure of Total Information Awareness initiative.
CSS Dock doesn't have anything to do with running processes or most of the other details also enumerated in the patent.
Its one thing to criticize software patents in general, but you shouldn't get specific with criticisms unless you know what you're talking about... it weakens the arguments you may be making.
You just described a novel process for responding to Slashdot articles.
I've never seen such an approach used here before, you should patent it before someone else does.
Ugh. The Kindle is one of the best-designed gadgets I've ever owned. I hope we don't suffer through a series of crappy re-thinkings based on some misplaced notion of hipness to try to sell readers to people who don't actually read books.
For instance, a touchscreen is an incredibly lame idea. You spend a _lot_ of time with an e-reader, ok? It takes hours and hours to read a book. Are you really going to want to read the another novel on that screen you've been dragging your finger across for the last three months? Yuck. Not a mobile phone, folks.
I was totally skeptical about the Kindle until I actually held one. It fits great in either hand, and unlike other readers I've seen you can use it one-handed. If you use your Kindle in the supplied leatherette case you're doing it wrong!
The Sony reader looks nicer in photos but doesn't have the same kind of balance. I'll take function over form on something like this any day.
Slashdotted. :-(
I really wish IBM's metapad got out of the prototype stage.
That's what I always expected the iPod to turn into: a portable device that you could plug into a workstation or laptop to perform more complex tasks.
Perhaps when the iPhone graduates from RISC to x86 we can get mobile/desktop convergence like this, with processes migrating from one cpu to another as necessary.
Man, that's nothing. My Macbook Pro gave me syphilis.
Isn't screwing one's sources against the journalistic ethic?
I can be intimate without screwing, you insensitive clod!
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3454/ ... or Google it?
I'll get one, if it means I get a better photo.
My current NY license has a picture of someone who looks like me, but who was smashed under a falling piano, re-inflated with a gas station airhose, and then embalmed by a first-year mortician.
I'd give up a little privacy to not have to hand that photo over every time I enter a bar or a tall building. Oh well, at least I've still got a sense of irony.
You bring up a good point about cloning, but then drop it. Think of how much easier it is to clone an RFID than to create a full counterfeit driver's license.
If, as some commenters have mentioned, this is about group-scan, then there will be an excellent black market opportunity in cloned celebrity IDs. As in "Hey, Winona Ryder was at that protest. Did you see her?"
Relying on RFID (only) to positively ID someone is going to lead to gleeful mayhem when the hackers show up.
Quick, put all of your infringing files on S3! Let's see how long it takes them to seize Amazon's entire infrastructure.
USA DOJ DDOS FTW!
Broadcasters, distributors, and producers--and therefore the FCC--all have a stake in trying to restrict your viewing choices to those in your local market. Knowing a bit about how the TV business works, I would say that less choice is a feature, not a bug.
- Broadcasters want you to watch your local station because it makes their local advertising time more valuable. Esp. advertising on local programs like news.
- Distributors want you to watch your local station, because you will demand that your local station buy more programs.
- Certain producers want you to watch your local station so they can restrict what you see (a la NFL) or when you see it.
It's not a huge conspiracy or anything, but certainly the people driving the FCC (not audiences!) have reason to be glad that DTV puts stronger geographical limits on signal reception.
What are you talking about? SMS certianly does support Chinese characters, as there are literally BILLIONS of text messages been sent in China each day, almost all in Chinese.
Mod parent up.
Wife's Ukrainian cellphone expects entry in Cyrillic, with autocomplete.
There is absolutely no reason to suspect that Chinese cellphones don't speak Chinese. Heck, we're lucky they speak English, given the relative size of the markets.
The barrier to entry for snooping your data is very low, and getting lower with each
new executive order. On the other hand the barrier to entry on snooping your data can be set arbitrarily high;
you can choose anything from 56 bit single-DES to 2048 bit RC4.
I find this point fascinating, actually. It has never been easier to provably hide information, even as the social safeguards protecting privacy are being systematically dismantled.
In some ways, each of those Executive Orders is doing us a favor, by telling us again and again, "Encrypt your communications, or keep your trap shut."
An SSL Certificate can match multiple hostnames in SSLv3 and TLS, which are both old enough to be in use everywhere.
There are two methods, depending on what you want (and your level of paranoia): wildcards (match *.example.com) and "Subject Alternative Names" which can match any from a list of domain names.
The subject alt name is incredibly useful, as the certificate for a physical host can enumerate alternative names for each of its virtual hosts, even if they aren't subdomains of the host's domain.
I'm admin for a few domains that use gmail apps. None of mine have that option yet. It may be a rolling update.?
This is a worry, actually. If you use the CNAME method where mail.yourdomain.com is an alias of ghs.google.com, then I don't think they can generate a valid SSL certificate for you.
The best they could do is redirect http requests to mail.yourdomain.com to https://mail.google.com/yourdomain/ (or whatever scheme they use). Better than no security at all, but takes away some of the vanity factor.
At the local level it IS broadcast--it's when you go upstream that the efficiency really emerges. If you run a video server, you only stream packets to a few downstream nodes, rather than to each client that is watching the stream.
To test it properly you'd want a network with multiple subnets. Multicast packets should only be router to, and broadcast on, subnets where there is a listening client.
Nevertheless, even locally, broadcast is more efficient than unicast if more than one client wants to listen.
When in NYC, don't overlook Barnes & Noble bookstores for their clean, functional, and free restrooms.
Typically they are located behind the children's books, which probably scares some number of homeless folks away (while encouraging others).
""I'm not going to lie: I used to smoke crack in there," said one homeless woman, Veronyka Cordner, nodding toward the toilet behind Pike Place Market. "But I won't even go inside that thing now. It's disgusting.""
I remember that as being the Best Quote Ever for the month of July. Thanks for re-posting!