Once it looks secure, to the end user there is no difference, because anything that can fake the "looks secure" will fool them. At that point, better security is only of value to the site operator, and only if it somehow does a better job of security.
I may be missing something, but what's the exact scenario where, say, Amazon using a something other than Let's Encrypt actually protects them in a way that Let's Encrypt wouldn't? The only scenario where Let's Encrypt fails is with authorizing typo and homoglyph domain names like amazÃn.com (Slashdot doesn't like my o-with-umlat character there, but replace that with whatever equivalent is allowed in DNS these days), and using a "more secure" certificate authority for the real domain does nothing to prevent that.
Seriously, if major sites like Amazon and eBay switched to Let's Encrypt certificates, how many people would care? Would it in any practical way open up security issues?
Whatever authority they use, I don't see why renewals can't be automated. In fact, I'm a little surprised that the government hasn't taken all of Let's Encrypt's code and created their own version just for.gov and.mil sites.
They need to just block anything that they can determine is spam. To start with, if the number is registered with the same carrier, it should be trivial to verify that the call is genuine, and drop it otherwise. Then they add something where they pass this verification on when sending calls outside the network, so if the call is from a number registered to Verizon, but Verizon hasn't verified it, it gets dropped, regardless of the carrier.
The lack of any system like this indicates that the phone companies don't want to solve the problem. I believe they make some small amount of money on putting calls through, and they don't want the volume of calls to drop.
If CEC spec supports that, then it's a matter of smart TVs getting smarter to detect it and treat ports on compliant switches just like native ports. That would be really cool and solve the port shortage problem. Now if only I worked for Roku or someone like that...
One is that business evolves, and the content business is now big money.
The other is the content business is still getting people to buy iPhones, but they're willing to sacrifice other hardware if it keeps people in their ecosystem buying iPhones.
Yup. I have my eye on a particular TV, and I was hoping to see essentially the same thing with an extra HDMI port or two. I just don't get why they're so stingy with those, especially when they want the TV to be the hub of everything with smart menus and such, but then they push you towards using a switch (in your receiver or otherwise). I'm hardware must be just pennies, but I'm guessing the limiting factor is patent fees. Now if they just updated HDMI to let the TV see the downstream switch and control it to make it look like the ports were in the TV to the consumer, that would solve this problem. Since they've thrown everything else into the HDMI spec, I figure this will come sooner or later (half-joking).
They need to be a content producer since Amazon, HBO, and Netflix all are doing it (and soon Disney). If they don't produce their own content, then they have no real story to tell as to why people should use their service instead of the others.
If we had laws separating content creators and distributors with mandatory distribution licensing to prohibit long-term exclusive contracts, then we would likely be in a much better situation for consumers in streaming, as you could pick any service, and you would get everything within one year once the exclusive deals expired.
Better, that is, except for one thing: There would be a less content. Lots of stuff is being produced solely because it locks people in to the service funding it. It would kill most of the exclusive original content.
That said, I would still like to see some mandatory licensing legislation, but not anything too strong that would stop the production of new shows we're seeing right now. I'm not sure exactly what the right policy is.
CES still seems to still be where new TVs are launched, so if you're in the market for one, this is a good time to see if there is anything interesting coming, or if you should be looking to grab last year's model at a discount.
Apple's attempt to get media on your TV was their AppleTV product that didn't do so well. While they would love to control all the hardware, they're more afraid of losing out on media to Amazon, NetFlix, Google, Spotify, and many others. If that happens, it's one less tie into the iPhone ecosystem, and Apple won't risk that.
Streaming is convenient, but not so much if you have to keep switching services to get everything you want, so all the big players want to be your one true provider. Limiting access is a strategy for failure.
It used to be that a bunch of standard ports were part of the chipset, USB, parallel, serial, SATA, ethernet, etc. I assume that secondary chip is now part of the CPU, so they're now saying that WiFi is on par with ethernet, which probably makes sense. For laptops, it's a no-brainer. For desktops, the added silicon is negligible, and if you don't want it, don't connect the antenna.
I could see some security concerns with high-security applications, but they're already worried about transmissions from various wires in the system, so they're probably already running those systems in faraday cages.
Backup is only part of what the original comment was about. He also used the phrase "data safety." And get this, RAID is about data safety. I also talked about backup as a separate factor in data safety. I don't get the instinct to jump all over people for talking about RAID. It's an important part of keeping data safe. So are backups. If you have a drive crash, backups are useless for recently-written data, so you need RAID. If you have a power hit that takes out the whole system, you need a backup, or you've lost everything. Shouting slogans is not data safety.
You sound like someone saying that firewalls aren't security. You're technically right, but firewalls are an important part of security.
I use Xine for DVD iso files, and it works just fine. I use MythTV, and I have it set up as the player for.iso video files, and it is essentially flawless, regardless of whether the storage is local or on the LAN. I did have this fail when the file server had network problems and dropped down to 100Mb instead of 1000Mb, even though that should have been sufficient. I haven't tried it with WiFi.
Blu Ray has a completely separate system for everything, and I'm not aware of any open source software for processing the menus. If you just want to extract the video files, that would probably work, but that's not a solution that lets me pack away the physical media in the storage room.
Right. That's why I talked about backus, and the fact that drive size has no impact on incrementals.
You're right that RAID rebuild time is important. Also, the rebuild puts more stress on the surviving drives, which are probably almost identical to the failing drive, so failures aren't independent. But the issues are similar with SSDs. Regardless of how you store your data, there are complicated management issues, and that's why we have companies like DellEMC that specialize in enterprise storage.
For my personal use, I'm perfectly happy with a RAID solution, and I will likely use mirroring the next time I upgrade. If I have a failure, I can upgrade that drive to a higher capacity, and wait until the other fails to upgrade the other and realize the added storage, which has the advantage of getting drives from different manufacturing lots.
If the demand for mass archival storage drops too low, then the drive manufacturers won't be able to amortize development costs over enough units, and prices will go up. That's the scenario that will most likely be the final death of spinning drives, as it will lead to solid state mass storage being cheaper.
While this is likely to be a slow process, I remember when memory prices had wild swings, and it's possible we may see the same with solid-state memory in the coming years. An sudden drop in SSD prices could kill the hard drive market overnight.
My 8TB NAS is filling up (3 4TB drives in RAID-5). When we were thinking of building an entertainment center in our weird TV space, we realized that it was mostly for storing our DVDs, and it was cheaper to build a file server in the basement instead. Now we're starting to collect Blu-Rays, which I haven't ripped because I want to keep the full menus and special features, but I don't have a good works-on-Linux system for that yet. (The best suggestion so far has been to do a raw copy of the disc and then run a Windows VM as a player, but I want something far less clunky.)
I hate this as much as you do, but we all know they use a decimal definition of TB, and you need to get them to use TiB if you want the one true binary definition.
Get me an SSD that I can use to store my DVD collection on at the same price I'm paying for the hard drives that do it today, and I'm there. I'll even pay a premium for the power savings. But I don't really care about performance for this application, as the current solution is good enough.
As long as the drive manufacturers can make magnetic media significantly cheaper than flash, they'll stay in business.
This is what RAID is for. And in the simpler cases, mirroring (RAID-1). The question is how long will it take to copy over all the data from your old drives. Depending on the situation, you might have to do it online, which slows down the process while impacting performance during the migration. Once you've migrated over, the question is not one of size, but of data rates. If you aren't generating data much faster than before, then your old system for incremental backups or offsite copies will work the same as always. Full backups become increasingly difficult as storage sizes increase.
Slashdot Mirror
I would assume the car's computers would know just how much thrust is left so that it will settle gently on the ground before running out.
What, like hundreds of people are now going to set their phones to use this MAC address? That would never happen.
Once it looks secure, to the end user there is no difference, because anything that can fake the "looks secure" will fool them. At that point, better security is only of value to the site operator, and only if it somehow does a better job of security.
I may be missing something, but what's the exact scenario where, say, Amazon using a something other than Let's Encrypt actually protects them in a way that Let's Encrypt wouldn't? The only scenario where Let's Encrypt fails is with authorizing typo and homoglyph domain names like amazÃn.com (Slashdot doesn't like my o-with-umlat character there, but replace that with whatever equivalent is allowed in DNS these days), and using a "more secure" certificate authority for the real domain does nothing to prevent that.
You're exactly wrong there. Let's Encrypt is a trusted CA by default. If Amazon switched, you would still see the green secure lock in your browser.
Seriously, if major sites like Amazon and eBay switched to Let's Encrypt certificates, how many people would care? Would it in any practical way open up security issues?
Whatever authority they use, I don't see why renewals can't be automated. In fact, I'm a little surprised that the government hasn't taken all of Let's Encrypt's code and created their own version just for .gov and .mil sites.
From an end-user perspective, all that matters is that the browser shows it as secure, so Let's Encrypt does the job.
They need to just block anything that they can determine is spam. To start with, if the number is registered with the same carrier, it should be trivial to verify that the call is genuine, and drop it otherwise. Then they add something where they pass this verification on when sending calls outside the network, so if the call is from a number registered to Verizon, but Verizon hasn't verified it, it gets dropped, regardless of the carrier.
The lack of any system like this indicates that the phone companies don't want to solve the problem. I believe they make some small amount of money on putting calls through, and they don't want the volume of calls to drop.
If CEC spec supports that, then it's a matter of smart TVs getting smarter to detect it and treat ports on compliant switches just like native ports. That would be really cool and solve the port shortage problem. Now if only I worked for Roku or someone like that...
I would guess that it's two factors.
One is that business evolves, and the content business is now big money.
The other is the content business is still getting people to buy iPhones, but they're willing to sacrifice other hardware if it keeps people in their ecosystem buying iPhones.
Yup. I have my eye on a particular TV, and I was hoping to see essentially the same thing with an extra HDMI port or two. I just don't get why they're so stingy with those, especially when they want the TV to be the hub of everything with smart menus and such, but then they push you towards using a switch (in your receiver or otherwise). I'm hardware must be just pennies, but I'm guessing the limiting factor is patent fees. Now if they just updated HDMI to let the TV see the downstream switch and control it to make it look like the ports were in the TV to the consumer, that would solve this problem. Since they've thrown everything else into the HDMI spec, I figure this will come sooner or later (half-joking).
They need to be a content producer since Amazon, HBO, and Netflix all are doing it (and soon Disney). If they don't produce their own content, then they have no real story to tell as to why people should use their service instead of the others.
If we had laws separating content creators and distributors with mandatory distribution licensing to prohibit long-term exclusive contracts, then we would likely be in a much better situation for consumers in streaming, as you could pick any service, and you would get everything within one year once the exclusive deals expired.
Better, that is, except for one thing: There would be a less content. Lots of stuff is being produced solely because it locks people in to the service funding it. It would kill most of the exclusive original content.
That said, I would still like to see some mandatory licensing legislation, but not anything too strong that would stop the production of new shows we're seeing right now. I'm not sure exactly what the right policy is.
CES still seems to still be where new TVs are launched, so if you're in the market for one, this is a good time to see if there is anything interesting coming, or if you should be looking to grab last year's model at a discount.
Apple's attempt to get media on your TV was their AppleTV product that didn't do so well. While they would love to control all the hardware, they're more afraid of losing out on media to Amazon, NetFlix, Google, Spotify, and many others. If that happens, it's one less tie into the iPhone ecosystem, and Apple won't risk that.
Streaming is convenient, but not so much if you have to keep switching services to get everything you want, so all the big players want to be your one true provider. Limiting access is a strategy for failure.
It used to be that a bunch of standard ports were part of the chipset, USB, parallel, serial, SATA, ethernet, etc. I assume that secondary chip is now part of the CPU, so they're now saying that WiFi is on par with ethernet, which probably makes sense. For laptops, it's a no-brainer. For desktops, the added silicon is negligible, and if you don't want it, don't connect the antenna.
I could see some security concerns with high-security applications, but they're already worried about transmissions from various wires in the system, so they're probably already running those systems in faraday cages.
Backup is only part of what the original comment was about. He also used the phrase "data safety." And get this, RAID is about data safety. I also talked about backup as a separate factor in data safety. I don't get the instinct to jump all over people for talking about RAID. It's an important part of keeping data safe. So are backups. If you have a drive crash, backups are useless for recently-written data, so you need RAID. If you have a power hit that takes out the whole system, you need a backup, or you've lost everything. Shouting slogans is not data safety.
You sound like someone saying that firewalls aren't security. You're technically right, but firewalls are an important part of security.
I never said it was, but it doesn't mean RAID isn't part of a data reliability strategy. RAID is useful. So are backups. So is reading comprehension.
I use Xine for DVD iso files, and it works just fine. I use MythTV, and I have it set up as the player for .iso video files, and it is essentially flawless, regardless of whether the storage is local or on the LAN. I did have this fail when the file server had network problems and dropped down to 100Mb instead of 1000Mb, even though that should have been sufficient. I haven't tried it with WiFi.
Blu Ray has a completely separate system for everything, and I'm not aware of any open source software for processing the menus. If you just want to extract the video files, that would probably work, but that's not a solution that lets me pack away the physical media in the storage room.
Nice how you can't read what I wrote and just toss out a slogan.
Right. That's why I talked about backus, and the fact that drive size has no impact on incrementals.
You're right that RAID rebuild time is important. Also, the rebuild puts more stress on the surviving drives, which are probably almost identical to the failing drive, so failures aren't independent. But the issues are similar with SSDs. Regardless of how you store your data, there are complicated management issues, and that's why we have companies like DellEMC that specialize in enterprise storage.
For my personal use, I'm perfectly happy with a RAID solution, and I will likely use mirroring the next time I upgrade. If I have a failure, I can upgrade that drive to a higher capacity, and wait until the other fails to upgrade the other and realize the added storage, which has the advantage of getting drives from different manufacturing lots.
That's a fair analysis.
If the demand for mass archival storage drops too low, then the drive manufacturers won't be able to amortize development costs over enough units, and prices will go up. That's the scenario that will most likely be the final death of spinning drives, as it will lead to solid state mass storage being cheaper.
While this is likely to be a slow process, I remember when memory prices had wild swings, and it's possible we may see the same with solid-state memory in the coming years. An sudden drop in SSD prices could kill the hard drive market overnight.
My 8TB NAS is filling up (3 4TB drives in RAID-5). When we were thinking of building an entertainment center in our weird TV space, we realized that it was mostly for storing our DVDs, and it was cheaper to build a file server in the basement instead. Now we're starting to collect Blu-Rays, which I haven't ripped because I want to keep the full menus and special features, but I don't have a good works-on-Linux system for that yet. (The best suggestion so far has been to do a raw copy of the disc and then run a Windows VM as a player, but I want something far less clunky.)
I hate this as much as you do, but we all know they use a decimal definition of TB, and you need to get them to use TiB if you want the one true binary definition.
Price.
Get me an SSD that I can use to store my DVD collection on at the same price I'm paying for the hard drives that do it today, and I'm there. I'll even pay a premium for the power savings. But I don't really care about performance for this application, as the current solution is good enough.
As long as the drive manufacturers can make magnetic media significantly cheaper than flash, they'll stay in business.
This is what RAID is for. And in the simpler cases, mirroring (RAID-1). The question is how long will it take to copy over all the data from your old drives. Depending on the situation, you might have to do it online, which slows down the process while impacting performance during the migration. Once you've migrated over, the question is not one of size, but of data rates. If you aren't generating data much faster than before, then your old system for incremental backups or offsite copies will work the same as always. Full backups become increasingly difficult as storage sizes increase.