This is a rather old idea, but I'm not aware of anyone doing it with modern hardware. You can't actually draw that much power through ambient radio waves, though. In the past, it's never been more than a curiosity because you couldn't build devices that could do anything useful with the amount of power you could get -- but these days, you can build useful circuits that need a whole lot less. This will be interesting to watch.
And it sucks hard, even when the automation does work. That's why I avoid Let's Encrypt -- it's just not for me. That said, it's probably fine for most people.
I don't really care if the battery is "removable" as long as I can open the phone with tools and replace the battery.
I count that as "removable". Just not conveniently so. But there are too many phones that don't even allow that, with batteries glued and/or soldered in.
Personally speaking, I don't consider that to be a very big loss. I can do data sharing between unrelated apps without a problem anyway. It's a little less convenient (but only a little), but not enough to matter.
While is not a bed of roses (specially at the end of the life of the ESR, when pretty much all sites believe your browser is "out of date and insecure" [which it is NOT])
God, how I wish that websites would stop checking which browser I'm using.
He was proposing a compromise between security and convenience.
My personal approach is to use completely random passwords, where the characters are chosen from the complete character set that the particular login allows. I have a different password for every different login I have. With password keepers or even the old-fashioned "write them on a piece of paper you keep in your wallet", this isn't an unworkable approach.
I don't cycle them on a regular basis, but every so often I get itchy about it cycle them. This happens about every other year.
I trust people who admit they're wrong (particularly if they admit it before anyone noticed) much, much more than people who try to act as if they're infallible.
That's a poor question to test honesty. The applicant could very well be totally honest, but delusional.
"What's your greatest weakness" is one of those BS questions that doesn't actually reveal much beyond whether or not the applicant is good at marketing.
But the entire basis and reason for removing trust in the first place is that WoSign refuses to follow the rules set forth for CAs.
The entire basis for removing trust in the first place is that Microsoft has decided they don't trust WoSign certs. It's not some sort of "punishment" for breaking the rules.
Conversely, If Microsoft decided that a CA wasn't trustworthy but didn't yank their cert because they were technically following the rules, then Microsoft would be doing wrong.
Personally I would have just yanked the root cert at the first sign of weirdness from the CA. After all we are only talking about the default list of trusted roots, users can add their own if they feel the need to trust something untrustworthy.
I would have done this as well. But, since most Windows users are not technically savvy, I'm sure that Microsoft took one look at the shitstorm that would hit their support desks (and the press) and flinched.
An awful lot of that sounds like the bloat is due to the same things that are making pretty much all other modern software so bloated: economics.
Developer time has become much more expensive than hardware, so the entire industry has moved to development practices and tools intended to minimize the time required to create applications. But these productivity gains, almost universally, come at the cost of wasting bytes and machine cycles.
So all software has, for many years now, been getting fatter and slower, relying on faster hardware to make things tolerable.
the fact is there isn't much reason to choose one over the other technically.
That all depends on your needs. For my needs, Chrome is a nonstarter because there are no extensions that can accomplish what I need. As to UI, that's a matter of taste. I absolutely loathe the Chrome UI, but I'm not going to call people who are OK with it "wrong". I will, however, be pushed away from Firefox if I can no longer make it stop looking and acting like Chrome.
I'm very nervous about it as well. My approach is going to be to put off upgrading for a good while until I hear the experiences of others about it. Then I'll decide.
I ask because I can't think of any other reason why you'd intentionally introduce a product at a moment when it's guaranteed that almost nobody will be paying attention.
Oh, hell, I'm wrong several times every day. Just like nearly 100% of the human population. I do often marvel, though, at how rare it is to hear someone face up to it.
Finding out that you're wrong is a moment to celebrate, not something to be embarrassed by. It marks a moment when you've become just a little less ignorant about something.
As the old saying goes, I've never learned anything from being right.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a rather old idea, but I'm not aware of anyone doing it with modern hardware. You can't actually draw that much power through ambient radio waves, though. In the past, it's never been more than a curiosity because you couldn't build devices that could do anything useful with the amount of power you could get -- but these days, you can build useful circuits that need a whole lot less. This will be interesting to watch.
Certs expiring after just a few months sucks.
And it sucks hard, even when the automation does work. That's why I avoid Let's Encrypt -- it's just not for me. That said, it's probably fine for most people.
I'm not aware of any apps I use that involve machine learning. Probably because I make sure that my machines cannot talk to the cloud.
they test their apps on a relatively clean device
If this is the only sort of testing you do, then you aren't actually testing your application.
Which goes a long way to explaining why most apps are terrible.
I don't really care if the battery is "removable" as long as I can open the phone with tools and replace the battery.
I count that as "removable". Just not conveniently so. But there are too many phones that don't even allow that, with batteries glued and/or soldered in.
I think we should stop calling such developers "lazy" and instead call them what they are: bad developers.
That is the larger mistake, in my opinion.
Being able to use memory cards and being able to change the battery are two of my "won't buy if I can't" features when I'm shopping for a phone.
Personally speaking, I don't consider that to be a very big loss. I can do data sharing between unrelated apps without a problem anyway. It's a little less convenient (but only a little), but not enough to matter.
While is not a bed of roses (specially at the end of the life of the ESR, when pretty much all sites believe your browser is "out of date and insecure" [which it is NOT])
God, how I wish that websites would stop checking which browser I'm using.
I literally could not care less about VR support in browsers.
But I also don't care if it's there, so long as the browser still meets my needs. My fear about FF is that it will no longer meet my needs.
He was proposing a compromise between security and convenience.
My personal approach is to use completely random passwords, where the characters are chosen from the complete character set that the particular login allows. I have a different password for every different login I have. With password keepers or even the old-fashioned "write them on a piece of paper you keep in your wallet", this isn't an unworkable approach.
I don't cycle them on a regular basis, but every so often I get itchy about it cycle them. This happens about every other year.
I trust people who admit they're wrong (particularly if they admit it before anyone noticed) much, much more than people who try to act as if they're infallible.
That's a poor question to test honesty. The applicant could very well be totally honest, but delusional.
"What's your greatest weakness" is one of those BS questions that doesn't actually reveal much beyond whether or not the applicant is good at marketing.
Personally, I don't actually trust any cert just because a commercial CA has signed it.
I don't want to trust any CA outside of those regions, and perhaps even some within those regions.
Your assumption that CAs can be considered trustworthy by default simply because they're in countries you like is charming. Dangerous, but charming.
But the entire basis and reason for removing trust in the first place is that WoSign refuses to follow the rules set forth for CAs.
The entire basis for removing trust in the first place is that Microsoft has decided they don't trust WoSign certs. It's not some sort of "punishment" for breaking the rules.
Conversely, If Microsoft decided that a CA wasn't trustworthy but didn't yank their cert because they were technically following the rules, then Microsoft would be doing wrong.
Personally I would have just yanked the root cert at the first sign of weirdness from the CA. After all we are only talking about the default list of trusted roots, users can add their own if they feel the need to trust something untrustworthy.
I would have done this as well. But, since most Windows users are not technically savvy, I'm sure that Microsoft took one look at the shitstorm that would hit their support desks (and the press) and flinched.
An awful lot of that sounds like the bloat is due to the same things that are making pretty much all other modern software so bloated: economics.
Developer time has become much more expensive than hardware, so the entire industry has moved to development practices and tools intended to minimize the time required to create applications. But these productivity gains, almost universally, come at the cost of wasting bytes and machine cycles.
So all software has, for many years now, been getting fatter and slower, relying on faster hardware to make things tolerable.
It might be wise for Firefox to make it possible to have the experience that Pale Moon offers. There's no reason why it has to be either/or.
Right now, with the use of plugins, I can make the current FireFox do just that. The issue is if this will still be possible after 57.
the fact is there isn't much reason to choose one over the other technically.
That all depends on your needs. For my needs, Chrome is a nonstarter because there are no extensions that can accomplish what I need. As to UI, that's a matter of taste. I absolutely loathe the Chrome UI, but I'm not going to call people who are OK with it "wrong". I will, however, be pushed away from Firefox if I can no longer make it stop looking and acting like Chrome.
As a long time Firefox user, I'm scared about the upcoming Firefox 57 release.
I'm very nervous about it as well. My approach is going to be to put off upgrading for a good while until I hear the experiences of others about it. Then I'll decide.
Yes, I do. Do you?
HTTPS only covers web traffic. Most of the traffic I generate is not web-based.
I ask because I can't think of any other reason why you'd intentionally introduce a product at a moment when it's guaranteed that almost nobody will be paying attention.
Oh, hell, I'm wrong several times every day. Just like nearly 100% of the human population. I do often marvel, though, at how rare it is to hear someone face up to it.
Finding out that you're wrong is a moment to celebrate, not something to be embarrassed by. It marks a moment when you've become just a little less ignorant about something.
As the old saying goes, I've never learned anything from being right.