If your ISP does something today then they can do that under NN since NN is currently is in effect. The only people claiming that ISP:s can no longer filter out spam or DDoS attacks and so on are only the anti NN lobbyists that are making false claims. I live in a country with NN and no ISP here have any problem what so ever with this, they can even block outgoing SMTP ports since they can show that this is done in order to minimize spam and attacks.
And exactly what is this client identifier that you are talking about? You do realise that there is no client cert ala ssh and that the client generates a new random key for every connection right, right?
Allowing for Comcast to charge $10 extra for more bandwidth is not against Net Neutrality. The problem here is that Comcast is charging $60 for a specified service (i.e a specific bandwidth) that they cannot actually deliver and want an external 3d party to pay for Comcasts faulty market model.
Let's pretend that you start a Taxi service where your market model is that you sell unlimited fares for a fixed monthly cost.
Now way out in the industry district a fancy new disco/pizza/mall/whatever opens (because the rent out there are cheaper) and a lot of your customers use their unlimited fares to go back and forth between this place and their homes several times per day.
This pisses you off since you now realize that selling unlimited fares in the hopes that no one actually would take that up was a shitty market model and instead of changing your business model or charging a much higher price for this service, you try to make congress pass a law that this new hot place should pay your taxi business for your added traffic.
So Comcast have a broken market model where they sell more bandwith than they actually have (or they over sell it) and you think that some 3d party should pay Comcast for the difference?
Remember that Netflix is only serving Comcasts customers, they are not forcing their data down Comcasts throat.
The parent AC claimed that "It is quite trivial to track them down unless extra effort it taken to stay hidden" which is what is true. If you do not take the extra effort and thus only rely on the "anonymity" of bitcoin then once some one can track a specific bitcoin transaction to you then they can see every transaction that you have ever done, including every bitcoin that you have ever owned (for the particular wallet that the connected bitcoin was stored in of course).
The sad part is that you probably already know all this but still felt to argue over semantics.
No because if a single core emulated 10 other cores there will i.e never be a situation where those 10 cores execute an instruction all at the same time. The laws of physics you know.
They are testing how their software scales to a massive amount of cores. This you cannot do on a single Xeon Phi. The speed and available bandwidth is irrelevant for that, it is of course relevant for other test cases but that is not what they test here.
Emulating the cores would falsify what they are testing since this would reduce a lot of possible race conditions (among other things).
Virtualization is nice but it's not an end all solution.
It depends on which collate you use for either the column, the table and/or the connection but if you use the utf8_unicode_ci then it follows the normalization rules as set out by the Unicode consortium. Yes there might be bugs in software, this does not make it "almost impossible". If "there might be a bug in the software" would be a show stopper then we would as of yet not even have booted up the very first computer.
I think the problem occurs for people who work with MSSQL since there exists no escape function for MSSQL like there does for PostgreSQL and MySQL/MariaDB so every dev there have to create their own buggy version.
Unicode is a non-issue since the built-in quote function in libpq/libmysqlclient handles the encoding just fine. The only thing that matters is which encoding is used for the client-to-server connection since that is what determines which characters that are dangerous so there are not gazillion encoding types to think about, simply set the connection to be utf-8 and you have a single encoding to worry about (but of course the built in quote functions cater for the actual encoding used so it doesn't really matter anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
If your ISP does something today then they can do that under NN since NN is currently is in effect. The only people claiming that ISP:s can no longer filter out spam or DDoS attacks and so on are only the anti NN lobbyists that are making false claims. I live in a country with NN and no ISP here have any problem what so ever with this, they can even block outgoing SMTP ports since they can show that this is done in order to minimize spam and attacks.
So create a self signed cert for .dev and install it in your browser as a ca.
Which is why god (Odin) invented the corporate web proxy.
The SSL Session ID is deleted once you close the browser. And I'm quite sure that you can disable it altogether (atleast in Firefox).
And exactly what is this client identifier that you are talking about? You do realise that there is no client cert ala ssh and that the client generates a new random key for every connection right, right?
Well the subject was corporate network so a MITM proxy is usually the norm anyway.
Allowing for Comcast to charge $10 extra for more bandwidth is not against Net Neutrality. The problem here is that Comcast is charging $60 for a specified service (i.e a specific bandwidth) that they cannot actually deliver and want an external 3d party to pay for Comcasts faulty market model.
Let's pretend that you start a Taxi service where your market model is that you sell unlimited fares for a fixed monthly cost.
Now way out in the industry district a fancy new disco/pizza/mall/whatever opens (because the rent out there are cheaper) and a lot of your customers use their unlimited fares to go back and forth between this place and their homes several times per day.
This pisses you off since you now realize that selling unlimited fares in the hopes that no one actually would take that up was a shitty market model and instead of changing your business model or charging a much higher price for this service, you try to make congress pass a law that this new hot place should pay your taxi business for your added traffic.
Now you can rename your taxi business Comcast.
How can Netflix serve Comcast's customers without forcing data down Comcast's throat?
You cannot see the contradiction in your very own statement? Seriously?
And you cannot (as of yet) effectively simulate the kind of massive scale out that places like this code for.
If you get no spam today as you claim then you obviously have no problem with net neutrality since it's currently is in effect.
So Comcast have a broken market model where they sell more bandwith than they actually have (or they over sell it) and you think that some 3d party should pay Comcast for the difference? Remember that Netflix is only serving Comcasts customers, they are not forcing their data down Comcasts throat.
So in other words it was exactly the people who would handle the master keys.
Of course but "to change the internal calling convention only" was not was what claimed if I want to be that pedantic semantics asshat :-)
That is not how this works and you know it.
The parent AC claimed that "It is quite trivial to track them down unless extra effort it taken to stay hidden" which is what is true. If you do not take the extra effort and thus only rely on the "anonymity" of bitcoin then once some one can track a specific bitcoin transaction to you then they can see every transaction that you have ever done, including every bitcoin that you have ever owned (for the particular wallet that the connected bitcoin was stored in of course).
The sad part is that you probably already know all this but still felt to argue over semantics.
No because if a single core emulated 10 other cores there will i.e never be a situation where those 10 cores execute an instruction all at the same time. The laws of physics you know.
They are testing how their software scales to a massive amount of cores. This you cannot do on a single Xeon Phi. The speed and available bandwidth is irrelevant for that, it is of course relevant for other test cases but that is not what they test here.
Hardly. Every transaction ever done is recorded in the block chain.
So how do you propose to link with external libraries if you use your own calling convention?
Emulating the cores would falsify what they are testing since this would reduce a lot of possible race conditions (among other things). Virtualization is nice but it's not an end all solution.
Which is exactly what the AC said. With higher fees only the wealthy can sue.
Wow that one Word document of yours really must have been important!
Look at where the Microsoft HQ in Germany is located for one small hint.
It depends on which collate you use for either the column, the table and/or the connection but if you use the utf8_unicode_ci then it follows the normalization rules as set out by the Unicode consortium. Yes there might be bugs in software, this does not make it "almost impossible". If "there might be a bug in the software" would be a show stopper then we would as of yet not even have booted up the very first computer.
I think the problem occurs for people who work with MSSQL since there exists no escape function for MSSQL like there does for PostgreSQL and MySQL/MariaDB so every dev there have to create their own buggy version.
Unicode is a non-issue since the built-in quote function in libpq/libmysqlclient handles the encoding just fine. The only thing that matters is which encoding is used for the client-to-server connection since that is what determines which characters that are dangerous so there are not gazillion encoding types to think about, simply set the connection to be utf-8 and you have a single encoding to worry about (but of course the built in quote functions cater for the actual encoding used so it doesn't really matter anyway).