I no longer have a TV so I won't see it. I no longer have a radio so I won't hear it. I have a spam filter on my email so I won't read it. So while everyone else panics, I'll be getting RICH (after someone posts on Slashdot how to do it).
Manufacturers like Dell, HP, etc. Retailers like Best Buy, Walmart, etc. Customers like Grandma, PHBs, etc. Basically, everyone who doesn't really give a shit about whether the user really has control over their computer or not.
If Microsoft had mandated that the manufacturers also provide a means for other operating systems to be bootable, even those without keys, when done under user control (UEFI option menus to import new keys, disable/delete keys, and even turn off key checking for specific devices and/or specific time frames), then perhaps we'd all be happy and even praising Microsoft. Instead, certain hackers will be motivated to figure out how to rootkit the UEFI code. Although they will enjoy wide community support to do that, once it is done, it creates a whole new danger. The risk of malware controlling the boot process will return. But this will happen under the guise of a false belief that Microsoft took steps to make computers running Windows be more secure. So basically, in the end, security will be no better, and technically worse because it is faux security, and all because of a decision by MIcrosoft to push their product under the guise of pushing security.
Borders went out of business because they were too pushy with the Rewards Card. I just wish now that I had not turned it down so I would have standing to file a petition to enter the bankruptcy proceeding as a defrauded creditor.
This kind of decision would turn every (former) Border's customer into a potential creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding, since it becomes a cost and damage to that customer if the privacy terms already agreed to are changed. Imagine if even 1 person of Border's (former) customer were to file a petition with the bankruptcy court to enter as a creditor.
I got 4 of those AG300H models, and have 3 of them deployed and 1 as a spare. One thing I noticed is that by default, the power level setting is not at the highest. Maybe that could account for the reported range issues because people don't turn it up higher. I did find issues with staying connected and low bandwidth at 2.4 GHz, but my previous WRT54GL had all the same and worse. The band is trashed where I live. That's why I switched, to get on 5.8 GHz, which is working like a champ, better than the WRT54GL ever did.
The author clearly does not understand programming languages if he says that, or else he's one of those kinds of programmers that just needs to stay away from languages that let you do whatever you want.
C and its somewhat object oriented cousin C++ are just tools to let programmers do whatever it is they want to do. If you know the languages and how they work, you can make whatever you like. You can make insecure programs. Or you can make secure programs. Your choice. What C and C++ suffer from is the stain of blood splatters from programmers that simply do not know what they are doing. Too many programs were written insecurely, not because the language forced them to, but because these programmers didn't know how to write different code into the programs that would make them secure.
I do admit that C has a few flaws, like certain functions that fail to properly test for string overflow conditions. One example is sprintf. Use snprintf in its place so the size of the target is known and checked in the function's own logic. But these are things good C programmers already know about.
I have my doubts about any other language. If a language is flexible enough to develop a major application with, then that language is also flexible enough to let an idiot write an insecure program. However, other programming languages might be useful to C and C++ to draw away the bad programmers. Let those other languages suffer from them for a while. Java certainly has in more recent years.
But you don't need to have UEFI to do it. You can do it with a legacy BIOS. You just have to know the standard for how the drives of that size will reveal their exact size, implement that in the next BIOS version, and you are there.
How about sticking the ISP with the bill. It is the ISP, afterall, that FAILED to provide hotspot operator with sufficient IP addresses to allow each user to have a distinct IP address to allow plaintiff to identify the downloader directly.
FYI, I do have proof that Verizon is a massive waster of IP addresses. And I don't mean "waste" in terms of just giving them away too easily. I mean "WASTE" in terms of network configurations that make massive numbers of them unavailable and unusable. It could be on the order of 50% or more IPs in their business services network.
If your only goal is business for profit, then yeah, what you say would be true. But there are other goals that Libertarians and Republicans just can't grok... benefiting the society and nation. Maybe you don't give a damn about such a goal. But I do. We need to make things work in the USA, not let Republicans sabotage everything in the name of free (to rip off the people and the nation) enterprise.
Business profit should never be the goal; it should be a means to achieve the greater good goals.
If the government is the only entity that WILL do it, then that's the way it will be. Both AT&T and Comcast had... and still have... the opportunity to deliver full gigabit service in Chattanooga. Your question isn't even relevant until at least one of those companies, or some newcomer (imagine if Google had picked Chattanooga), does it. The real fact is these companies do not want to provide this kind of service. If it takes government to do the right thing, then I'm all for it.
But they are still nickel-and-dime-ing you with tiny increments in speed. Fiber can give you a freaking 1 gigabit per second easily, and more if you try (a lot more). 100 megabit/sec should be at $50/mo by now, with full IPv6 capability included. These companies ARE still dragging their heals in deep. Two companies does not make real competition. It's still a quasi-monopoly. REAL competition, with at least 6 providers, would have at least one of them delivering a gigabit, and all of them delivering 100 megabit with IPv6 by now. Where's the beef????
Sure, places like Taiwan are better at manufacturing electronic components than the US is. The US is better at building airplanes than Taiwan is. So, we trade -- the US builds airplanes while Taiwan manufactures electronic components. As a result, we get less expensive electronics and less expensive airplanes. That's a good thing which makes everybody better off.
The only reason they are slightly better now is because of the recent experience. The US can re-establish that and be at least just as good.
The real problem is an imbalance in the standard of living. It costs more in the US to have manufacturing work done than in Taiwan because people in Taiwan at the level who would do such manufacturing have a lower standard of living.
Taiwan could manufacture airplanes, too, if given the chance. But they might not get that chance because it is not a commodity product that sells based on price alone.
You don't understand. Big business has an exemption from having to comply with the law. Their CEOs have arranged for this through the Republican party.
250MW is enough to power 5000 homes running the 200 amps that would overload most breaker panels. Realistically, it could power 25000 to 50000 homes, easily. If you can do that in 227 kg unit, then this is how we should be building power plants.
This has to be a major typo. Even 250KW is a lot of power to get out of a unit that small (can still run 5 to 50 homes). Maybe 250W? Now it's just a bit small to power a car.
People know me (love me or hate me) as "Skapare" (or any of the other dozen or so nicknames I use on other contexts). What good is it to put a profile on Google+ that is based on the name that was put on my birth certificate? Until Google lets people be who they want to be online, then Google+ is just as useless as Facebook.
Actually, I don't have an issue with Google verifying that I am who I say... to them... that I am. But my internet persona is not that. Here on Slashdot, who cares what my real life name is. But what they might, and some sites like Google+ and Facebook probably do, care about, is that I cannot abuse the system by putting up a profile or make comments that is/are completely inappropriate. I could put "Skapare" up on one of those sites and do some nasty stuff and get banned. And then I can put up another site and still do nasty stuff again, abusing the system until that one gets caught. And Google already knows that people not only do this, but even have an inventory of ready-made, not yet abused, personas that they can turn as soon as they need to. Spammers are doing this big time, for example.
It should not be a matter of whether my profile is fake or not. Impersonation can be an issue. But the focus should be on whether the person actually doing it, even though not named on the site(s) created, is abusing the system. If I were to run a social media site, I'd have a "three strikes" policy along with the policy of what is appropriate and inappropriate content. And once you... the REAL you... breaks the rules for the third time, you... the REAL you... get to create no new profiles for a year. After that, it's a "one strike and triple the time" policy. So the 4th violation nets a three year wait, and so on.
To effectively enforce that, this is where actual real life identification is required. That identification would be used to enforce any attempt to create new profiles during the ban. But the point is, having this identification does not, and should not, mean the profiles have to represent that real life identity. The real life identity would be kept confidential and secret from the posted profile. Law enforcement in the jurisdiction(s) operating in would have certain legal access to that, such as a court order. And other restrictions would also have to apply whether I like it or not, such as copyright violation takedowns (and repeating this would earn a ban, too). But, again, the whole idea of a pseudonym profile is what it is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
I no longer have a TV so I won't see it. I no longer have a radio so I won't hear it. I have a spam filter on my email so I won't read it. So while everyone else panics, I'll be getting RICH (after someone posts on Slashdot how to do it).
... how much did it cost you?
Well, the rat only cost $9.95. It's the after-market mod-kit that was a killer at $5,999,999.95.
Who actually cares about those logos anyway?
Manufacturers like Dell, HP, etc. Retailers like Best Buy, Walmart, etc. Customers like Grandma, PHBs, etc. Basically, everyone who doesn't really give a shit about whether the user really has control over their computer or not.
If Microsoft had mandated that the manufacturers also provide a means for other operating systems to be bootable, even those without keys, when done under user control (UEFI option menus to import new keys, disable/delete keys, and even turn off key checking for specific devices and/or specific time frames), then perhaps we'd all be happy and even praising Microsoft. Instead, certain hackers will be motivated to figure out how to rootkit the UEFI code. Although they will enjoy wide community support to do that, once it is done, it creates a whole new danger. The risk of malware controlling the boot process will return. But this will happen under the guise of a false belief that Microsoft took steps to make computers running Windows be more secure. So basically, in the end, security will be no better, and technically worse because it is faux security, and all because of a decision by MIcrosoft to push their product under the guise of pushing security.
... I unplugged my Dishnet.
Borders went out of business because they were too pushy with the Rewards Card. I just wish now that I had not turned it down so I would have standing to file a petition to enter the bankruptcy proceeding as a defrauded creditor.
Oops, that should be 1 PERCENT of ...
This kind of decision would turn every (former) Border's customer into a potential creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding, since it becomes a cost and damage to that customer if the privacy terms already agreed to are changed. Imagine if even 1 person of Border's (former) customer were to file a petition with the bankruptcy court to enter as a creditor.
And go for IPv6 addresses. The MAFIAA probably doesn't even know what IPv6 is, yet.
I got 4 of those AG300H models, and have 3 of them deployed and 1 as a spare. One thing I noticed is that by default, the power level setting is not at the highest. Maybe that could account for the reported range issues because people don't turn it up higher. I did find issues with staying connected and low bandwidth at 2.4 GHz, but my previous WRT54GL had all the same and worse. The band is trashed where I live. That's why I switched, to get on 5.8 GHz, which is working like a champ, better than the WRT54GL ever did.
The author clearly does not understand programming languages if he says that, or else he's one of those kinds of programmers that just needs to stay away from languages that let you do whatever you want.
C and its somewhat object oriented cousin C++ are just tools to let programmers do whatever it is they want to do. If you know the languages and how they work, you can make whatever you like. You can make insecure programs. Or you can make secure programs. Your choice. What C and C++ suffer from is the stain of blood splatters from programmers that simply do not know what they are doing. Too many programs were written insecurely, not because the language forced them to, but because these programmers didn't know how to write different code into the programs that would make them secure.
I do admit that C has a few flaws, like certain functions that fail to properly test for string overflow conditions. One example is sprintf. Use snprintf in its place so the size of the target is known and checked in the function's own logic. But these are things good C programmers already know about.
I have my doubts about any other language. If a language is flexible enough to develop a major application with, then that language is also flexible enough to let an idiot write an insecure program. However, other programming languages might be useful to C and C++ to draw away the bad programmers. Let those other languages suffer from them for a while. Java certainly has in more recent years.
But you don't need to have UEFI to do it. You can do it with a legacy BIOS. You just have to know the standard for how the drives of that size will reveal their exact size, implement that in the next BIOS version, and you are there.
Maybe in SOME countries. It would never pass Constitutional limitations in the USA.
How about sticking the ISP with the bill. It is the ISP, afterall, that FAILED to provide hotspot operator with sufficient IP addresses to allow each user to have a distinct IP address to allow plaintiff to identify the downloader directly.
FYI, I do have proof that Verizon is a massive waster of IP addresses. And I don't mean "waste" in terms of just giving them away too easily. I mean "WASTE" in terms of network configurations that make massive numbers of them unavailable and unusable. It could be on the order of 50% or more IPs in their business services network.
If your only goal is business for profit, then yeah, what you say would be true. But there are other goals that Libertarians and Republicans just can't grok ... benefiting the society and nation. Maybe you don't give a damn about such a goal. But I do. We need to make things work in the USA, not let Republicans sabotage everything in the name of free (to rip off the people and the nation) enterprise.
Business profit should never be the goal; it should be a means to achieve the greater good goals.
If the government is the only entity that WILL do it, then that's the way it will be. Both AT&T and Comcast had ... and still have ... the opportunity to deliver full gigabit service in Chattanooga. Your question isn't even relevant until at least one of those companies, or some newcomer (imagine if Google had picked Chattanooga), does it. The real fact is these companies do not want to provide this kind of service. If it takes government to do the right thing, then I'm all for it.
A supermajority of either big party would sink the country. Best to have Congress gridlocked so they can't make things worse.
But they are still nickel-and-dime-ing you with tiny increments in speed. Fiber can give you a freaking 1 gigabit per second easily, and more if you try (a lot more). 100 megabit/sec should be at $50/mo by now, with full IPv6 capability included. These companies ARE still dragging their heals in deep. Two companies does not make real competition. It's still a quasi-monopoly. REAL competition, with at least 6 providers, would have at least one of them delivering a gigabit, and all of them delivering 100 megabit with IPv6 by now. Where's the beef????
Sure, places like Taiwan are better at manufacturing electronic components than the US is. The US is better at building airplanes than Taiwan is. So, we trade -- the US builds airplanes while Taiwan manufactures electronic components. As a result, we get less expensive electronics and less expensive airplanes. That's a good thing which makes everybody better off.
The only reason they are slightly better now is because of the recent experience. The US can re-establish that and be at least just as good.
The real problem is an imbalance in the standard of living. It costs more in the US to have manufacturing work done than in Taiwan because people in Taiwan at the level who would do such manufacturing have a lower standard of living.
Taiwan could manufacture airplanes, too, if given the chance. But they might not get that chance because it is not a commodity product that sells based on price alone.
You don't understand. Big business has an exemption from having to comply with the law. Their CEOs have arranged for this through the Republican party.
... cheat, steal, and lie. Old news. Move along.
Forget cars... every house could use one of these Thorium generators to produce its own power.
Not to worry, the electrical power generating industry, just like the oil industry, would never allow this to make it to market.
How about "magic"?
250MW is enough to power 5000 homes running the 200 amps that would overload most breaker panels. Realistically, it could power 25000 to 50000 homes, easily. If you can do that in 227 kg unit, then this is how we should be building power plants.
This has to be a major typo. Even 250KW is a lot of power to get out of a unit that small (can still run 5 to 50 homes). Maybe 250W? Now it's just a bit small to power a car.
People know me (love me or hate me) as "Skapare" (or any of the other dozen or so nicknames I use on other contexts). What good is it to put a profile on Google+ that is based on the name that was put on my birth certificate? Until Google lets people be who they want to be online, then Google+ is just as useless as Facebook.
Actually, I don't have an issue with Google verifying that I am who I say ... to them ... that I am. But my internet persona is not that. Here on Slashdot, who cares what my real life name is. But what they might, and some sites like Google+ and Facebook probably do, care about, is that I cannot abuse the system by putting up a profile or make comments that is/are completely inappropriate. I could put "Skapare" up on one of those sites and do some nasty stuff and get banned. And then I can put up another site and still do nasty stuff again, abusing the system until that one gets caught. And Google already knows that people not only do this, but even have an inventory of ready-made, not yet abused, personas that they can turn as soon as they need to. Spammers are doing this big time, for example.
It should not be a matter of whether my profile is fake or not. Impersonation can be an issue. But the focus should be on whether the person actually doing it, even though not named on the site(s) created, is abusing the system. If I were to run a social media site, I'd have a "three strikes" policy along with the policy of what is appropriate and inappropriate content. And once you ... the REAL you ... breaks the rules for the third time, you ... the REAL you ... get to create no new profiles for a year. After that, it's a "one strike and triple the time" policy. So the 4th violation nets a three year wait, and so on.
To effectively enforce that, this is where actual real life identification is required. That identification would be used to enforce any attempt to create new profiles during the ban. But the point is, having this identification does not, and should not, mean the profiles have to represent that real life identity. The real life identity would be kept confidential and secret from the posted profile. Law enforcement in the jurisdiction(s) operating in would have certain legal access to that, such as a court order. And other restrictions would also have to apply whether I like it or not, such as copyright violation takedowns (and repeating this would earn a ban, too). But, again, the whole idea of a pseudonym profile is what it is all about.