The idea is to make the messages traceable to a verified source, less likely to try to spam others when it can be reliably traced to you.
Most mail servers have limits in place to prevent abuse from users (the mass mailings sent by my company have fallen victim to this quite a few times), the weak point is reputable mail severs could not always reliably trace the mail back to the source once other servers were involved because of spoofing, by forcing full authentication you are at least sure who you are dealing with.
As posted elsewhere they still accept non-ssl connections but I'm quite sure that mail goes through MUCH more stringent checks that the mail received over ssl receives.
There is a free one, also you are missing the part about different pop3 server which essentially means you run your own domain, I'm assuming by " download our email from our Gmail account" you do not fall in that category. If you are actually using the pop3 protocol to download mail from Gmail you are already using SSL (Gmail hasn't accepted non-ssl client connections for years, I know because I had to setup a stunnel sever for some legacy apps during the cutover).
The list of people this actually affects (negatively) is miniscule (it only going to be the domain operators).
If the OP is attempting to replace a TI-84 I am going to go out on a limb here and say he maybe isn't interested in such advanced statistics (or whatever else is different) that both matlab and R are ridiculous supersets of what a TI-84 can do.
A TI-89s symbolic engine is a separate matter entirely but I'd guess either choice will be fine.
I highly doubt Google is the only one doing this, funny enough his "arrogant" tone is probably there for a reason.
Such a tone is probably the only thing that will prompt the true fix (close the loopholes, more importantly close them for all of the big corporations).
The issue will be raised by George Osborne when Britain takes over the chairmanship of the G8 and will also be investigated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Last week the Chancellor said he was committed to “leading the international effort” to prevent international companies transferring profits away from major economies, including Britain, to tax havens.
“We will put more resources into ensuring multi-national companies pay their proper share of taxes,” he said. “With Germany and now France, we have asked the OECD to take this work forward and we will make it an important priority of our G8 Presidency next year.”
Who else / how else can get such a response from lawmakers, finally they are actually going to look at and attempt to fix it. If you want big corporations to appear repentant to your face and still go behind you back and screw you then you deserve everything thats coming.
I've been curious about this as well, China's great firewall and the various outages of countries from the internet seem to indicate they already have what is being asked for (at least on the surface).
What I think they are trying to do is push that view out to the rest of the Internet, which I would like to hope the UN / ITU is smart enough to determine.
I'd agree with you for the most part, but I'd say the conclusion it only applies in the current situations where there is a serious imbalance of military power.
If two opponents of similar capabilities to the current US were to meet each other on the battlefield I'd guess the first targets would be New York, Hollywood, seeing as they wouldn't be a battlefield per se.
Take a look at the pics in that article, not exactly a quantum leap in design to make it a clip on instead of a full set of glasses (stability is the only major concern I can think of).
Indeed, maybe I should walk into McDonalds and buy a kids meal with a 'big-kid' toy and hand it to a toddler and lets see how much I can get out of micky Ds...
Based on how all of this is going that warning label means nothing.
I'd agree with this, as a side note the community college I attended had a bit of an unofficial stat. Those CS majors that actually had to take this course (almost everyone tested out of it) had a horribly hard time with the rest of the degree and was unlikely to graduate.
To the OP, you will have to accept that the 101 course is not aimed at CS majors. Its designed for the rest of the campus, it provides the skills necessary for writing reports, analysing / organizing data data using spreadsheets, etc. which they will need for the rest of their college and professional life.
To my peer commenter the testing out at the community college was free, also I can comment for my 4-year college as well which was UMD College Park, when you enter they give you a test (the fee if there is any is part of the normal administrative fees) depending on how you score determines where in the chain of courses you start you can test out all the way up to a 3rd year course if memory serves.
This was the state of affairs from 2001-2005 so your mileage may vary.
'The Tier Zero facility is the central hub of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid, which also connects to some dozen ‘Tier One’ data centres for near-real time storage and analysis of data and over 150 ‘Tier Two’ data centres for batch analysis of experiment data.'
Intergration with other tools like the authentication server for terminating access when an employee gets fired seems like a simple addition that carries quite a few variables that would deter a company from developing it.
Not sure I agree, Most phones are not quad-core beasts, I'd even argue that most in the wild now are not even dual cores actually single core running around the 1Ghz area with anywhere from 256M to 1G of RAM.
Save engineers, or other heavy graphics users, who actually uses that on a PC far less a phone. Sorry MS office doesn't count as a heavy app, bloated sure but by no means the reason I would upgrade an XP-era machine which is the level I would put most phones at.
The PC has proven that for most users dual-core is enough, I expect the same trend to be followed by phones so I still expect most users to upgrade but not really go further than that. The primary force holding back such a move in my view will be how to provide power for those extra cores.
The final counter would be the raspberry pi has hardware accelerated graphics which is where most of the computation in a "normal" user's PC happens. Given that it can playback 1080p video and play quake 3 (@60fps) indicates that it can challenge the current netbook market.
Do they have DVI? Then for less than 5 bucks you have HDMI.
For the laptops, I'd say the graphics on them is most likely crap so it would never have made sense to put a different connector. Any laptop I've seen that carries a decent graphics card carries HDMI or display port.
Last I heard the two are designed to co-exist, HDMI for TVs and displayport for computers, I guess they don't plan features like the whole multimonitor over a single cable for HDMI that display port now supports.
Display port may be the superior alternative (higher data rate, can support ethernet and a whole host of other protocols as well as audio) but I can't see HDMI being that short lived when the two dominant gaming consoles out (Xbox & PS) and allot of dvd / blueray players using it. Given that it is trivial to convert between DVI, HDMI and display port, I believe they will co-exist for a while (until some feature that the end user cares about becomes unique to one), display port slowly chipping away at DVI and HDMI eating composite alive.
If you used DHCPv6 to hand out addresses and your machine just magiclly pulled IPv6 instead of IPv4 them and your connection "Just worked" why would you care which protocol was being used? This will cover 90% of home installs and is still quite simple, fc00::1 doesn't seem that much more complicated than 192.168.0.1, gives you allot more breathing room too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network#Private_IPv6_addresses)
Also I highly doubt your ISP will give you a full publicly routable subnet (not initially anyway), that would cut into the business segment of sales. You run whatever you want internally and IPv6 runs on the CPE to talk to the internet. It will make sense to switch your internal network to IPv6 once the list of services only available over IPv6 starts to grow, not like you are losing access to anything, IPv4 is accessible via IPv6 but not vice-versa.
The problem is the services can't move first otherwise they lose customers (and also have to run dual stack for a while), so the stalemate will continue until the consumers are unable to get v4 addresses. The good news is this will hit consumers before it hits web site operators because ISPs require wayy more address space than hosting services use (simple one server to many clients dynamic). Hosting providers have more options to deal with the issue as well because they know what traffic is using their ips (reverse proxys, etc.), no carrier wants to run large scale NAT if it can be avoided (the stateless nature of routing is what allows it to scale).
The splits for traffic engineering would never be as bad as it is in the IPv4 world, at least until we reach the same state with IPv6 that we are currently in with IPv4. We have 4 different allocations from LACNIC, from 3 different class A's, we can't summarize them even if we wanted.
We can still take the IPv6/32 we got from LACNIC and split it for the purposes of traffic engineering but at most we would be splitting it based on the number of uplinks we have vs the number of allocations we get.
I don't think they were specifically after a full tree, just to try to get as close to a tree as was reasonable by removing the need for unnecessary fragmentation (from the view of the global routing table), Seeing an ISP advertizing one of their/18s as/24s makes me really wonder what the new segmentation limit will be for IPv6.
I'll point out the major reason, we have kinda run out of IPv4 addresses. Not fun when you sign up for new link from your ISP and the response is "Here's your link but we have no ips for you to use it with".
Reason enough? All the other stuff are (useful) side-effects.
As to the security implications, thats the job of a firewall, of which NAT is just a dumb (although statefull) version of.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea is to make the messages traceable to a verified source, less likely to try to spam others when it can be reliably traced to you.
Most mail servers have limits in place to prevent abuse from users (the mass mailings sent by my company have fallen victim to this quite a few times), the weak point is reputable mail severs could not always reliably trace the mail back to the source once other servers were involved because of spoofing, by forcing full authentication you are at least sure who you are dealing with.
As posted elsewhere they still accept non-ssl connections but I'm quite sure that mail goes through MUCH more stringent checks that the mail received over ssl receives.
I don't follow, He was running his own mail server? Or had a google account?
If you just want to pull your own mail you never needed certs even a self signed one.
http://www.instantssl.com/ssl-certificate-products/free-ssl-certificate.html
There is a free one, also you are missing the part about different pop3 server which essentially means you run your own domain, I'm assuming by " download our email from our Gmail account" you do not fall in that category. If you are actually using the pop3 protocol to download mail from Gmail you are already using SSL (Gmail hasn't accepted non-ssl client connections for years, I know because I had to setup a stunnel sever for some legacy apps during the cutover).
The list of people this actually affects (negatively) is miniscule (it only going to be the domain operators).
If the OP is attempting to replace a TI-84 I am going to go out on a limb here and say he maybe isn't interested in such advanced statistics (or whatever else is different) that both matlab and R are ridiculous supersets of what a TI-84 can do.
A TI-89s symbolic engine is a separate matter entirely but I'd guess either choice will be fine.
I highly doubt Google is the only one doing this, funny enough his "arrogant" tone is probably there for a reason.
Such a tone is probably the only thing that will prompt the true fix (close the loopholes, more importantly close them for all of the big corporations).
The issue will be raised by George Osborne when Britain takes over the chairmanship of the G8 and will also be investigated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Last week the Chancellor said he was committed to “leading the international effort” to prevent international companies transferring profits away from major economies, including Britain, to tax havens.
“We will put more resources into ensuring multi-national companies pay their proper share of taxes,” he said. “With Germany and now France, we have asked the OECD to take this work forward and we will make it an important priority of our G8 Presidency next year.”
Who else / how else can get such a response from lawmakers, finally they are actually going to look at and attempt to fix it. If you want big corporations to appear repentant to your face and still go behind you back and screw you then you deserve everything thats coming.
When a problem comes along you must RIPA it!!!
When something's goin' wrong You must RIPA it!!!
I've been curious about this as well, China's great firewall and the various outages of countries from the internet seem to indicate they already have what is being asked for (at least on the surface).
What I think they are trying to do is push that view out to the rest of the Internet, which I would like to hope the UN / ITU is smart enough to determine.
I'd agree with you for the most part, but I'd say the conclusion it only applies in the current situations where there is a serious imbalance of military power.
If two opponents of similar capabilities to the current US were to meet each other on the battlefield I'd guess the first targets would be New York, Hollywood, seeing as they wouldn't be a battlefield per se.
VR glasses? Like these?
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Virtual+Digital+Video+Glasses&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AVirtual+Digital+Video+Glasses
Play whatever you want, all these are missing is sensors to determine orientation / movement (same sensors inside almost every smart phone).
Why do you need to wear both? why not just clip on the AR system to your existing glasses?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18091697
Take a look at the pics in that article, not exactly a quantum leap in design to make it a clip on instead of a full set of glasses (stability is the only major concern I can think of).
"No practical working implementations"? Has done no research on the matter has you, yessss....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann - This is just the most famous of the group.
There are no "consumer ready" AR glasses for various reasons but fully working implementations have been in existence for years.
They can record the TSA agents too, can't have that!!!
Don't think the GP is refering to every site just the big ones, I'd put the criteria at those large enough to have a legal department...
Indeed, maybe I should walk into McDonalds and buy a kids meal with a 'big-kid' toy and hand it to a toddler and lets see how much I can get out of micky Ds...
Based on how all of this is going that warning label means nothing.
I'd agree with this, as a side note the community college I attended had a bit of an unofficial stat. Those CS majors that actually had to take this course (almost everyone tested out of it) had a horribly hard time with the rest of the degree and was unlikely to graduate.
To the OP, you will have to accept that the 101 course is not aimed at CS majors. Its designed for the rest of the campus, it provides the skills necessary for writing reports, analysing / organizing data data using spreadsheets, etc. which they will need for the rest of their college and professional life.
To my peer commenter the testing out at the community college was free, also I can comment for my 4-year college as well which was UMD College Park, when you enter they give you a test (the fee if there is any is part of the normal administrative fees) depending on how you score determines where in the chain of courses you start you can test out all the way up to a 3rd year course if memory serves.
This was the state of affairs from 2001-2005 so your mileage may vary.
'Score: 3, Funny' - This is hilarious, from TFA:
'The Tier Zero facility is the central hub of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid, which also connects to some dozen ‘Tier One’ data centres for near-real time storage and analysis of data and over 150 ‘Tier Two’ data centres for batch analysis of experiment data.'
Intergration with other tools like the authentication server for terminating access when an employee gets fired seems like a simple addition that carries quite a few variables that would deter a company from developing it.
Securing guns just became harder.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/27/1637208/how-a-3-year-old-can-open-a-gun-safe
Why would the lawyers want that? If they can keep this going for a few more years they'd be set for life!!!
Not sure I agree, Most phones are not quad-core beasts, I'd even argue that most in the wild now are not even dual cores actually single core running around the 1Ghz area with anywhere from 256M to 1G of RAM.
Save engineers, or other heavy graphics users, who actually uses that on a PC far less a phone. Sorry MS office doesn't count as a heavy app, bloated sure but by no means the reason I would upgrade an XP-era machine which is the level I would put most phones at.
The PC has proven that for most users dual-core is enough, I expect the same trend to be followed by phones so I still expect most users to upgrade but not really go further than that. The primary force holding back such a move in my view will be how to provide power for those extra cores.
The final counter would be the raspberry pi has hardware accelerated graphics which is where most of the computation in a "normal" user's PC happens. Given that it can playback 1080p video and play quake 3 (@60fps) indicates that it can challenge the current netbook market.
Do they have DVI? Then for less than 5 bucks you have HDMI.
For the laptops, I'd say the graphics on them is most likely crap so it would never have made sense to put a different connector. Any laptop I've seen that carries a decent graphics card carries HDMI or display port.
Last I heard the two are designed to co-exist, HDMI for TVs and displayport for computers, I guess they don't plan features like the whole multimonitor over a single cable for HDMI that display port now supports.
Display port may be the superior alternative (higher data rate, can support ethernet and a whole host of other protocols as well as audio) but I can't see HDMI being that short lived when the two dominant gaming consoles out (Xbox & PS) and allot of dvd / blueray players using it. Given that it is trivial to convert between DVI, HDMI and display port, I believe they will co-exist for a while (until some feature that the end user cares about becomes unique to one), display port slowly chipping away at DVI and HDMI eating composite alive.
If you used DHCPv6 to hand out addresses and your machine just magiclly pulled IPv6 instead of IPv4 them and your connection "Just worked" why would you care which protocol was being used? This will cover 90% of home installs and is still quite simple, fc00::1 doesn't seem that much more complicated than 192.168.0.1, gives you allot more breathing room too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network#Private_IPv6_addresses)
Also I highly doubt your ISP will give you a full publicly routable subnet (not initially anyway), that would cut into the business segment of sales. You run whatever you want internally and IPv6 runs on the CPE to talk to the internet. It will make sense to switch your internal network to IPv6 once the list of services only available over IPv6 starts to grow, not like you are losing access to anything, IPv4 is accessible via IPv6 but not vice-versa.
The problem is the services can't move first otherwise they lose customers (and also have to run dual stack for a while), so the stalemate will continue until the consumers are unable to get v4 addresses. The good news is this will hit consumers before it hits web site operators because ISPs require wayy more address space than hosting services use (simple one server to many clients dynamic). Hosting providers have more options to deal with the issue as well because they know what traffic is using their ips (reverse proxys, etc.), no carrier wants to run large scale NAT if it can be avoided (the stateless nature of routing is what allows it to scale).
The splits for traffic engineering would never be as bad as it is in the IPv4 world, at least until we reach the same state with IPv6 that we are currently in with IPv4. We have 4 different allocations from LACNIC, from 3 different class A's, we can't summarize them even if we wanted.
We can still take the IPv6 /32 we got from LACNIC and split it for the purposes of traffic engineering but at most we would be splitting it based on the number of uplinks we have vs the number of allocations we get.
I don't think they were specifically after a full tree, just to try to get as close to a tree as was reasonable by removing the need for unnecessary fragmentation (from the view of the global routing table), Seeing an ISP advertizing one of their /18s as /24s makes me really wonder what the new segmentation limit will be for IPv6.
I'll point out the major reason, we have kinda run out of IPv4 addresses. Not fun when you sign up for new link from your ISP and the response is "Here's your link but we have no ips for you to use it with".
Reason enough? All the other stuff are (useful) side-effects.
As to the security implications, thats the job of a firewall, of which NAT is just a dumb (although statefull) version of.