Touche. The funny thing is that I probably would vote for, just based on the little I know of her, over my current choices. I'll just be over here telling myself that doesn't have anything to do with appearance...
We should read the transcripts. I don't care if someone looks like Natalie Portman or sounds like Walter Cronkite, but I do care about their ability to put ideas together in coherent sentences.
Clearly there are times when inaction can be evil, but I can't see where this is one. And as you point out, they are trying (though I'm a bit skeptical that what Google's lobbying for and what I would want are the same, at least they're closer than e.g. Facebook), so even if this were one of those situations, they would still not be doing evil. At least in regard to your question.
But it's still better than http, because it's not trying to solve the vulnerability you're complaining about. Plain HTTP is vulnerable to MITM and ANY SORT OF EAVESDROPPING. Self signed certs are vulnerable to MITM, and eavesdropping (I believe) if the 3rd party catches all of the key exchange. CA signed certs are vulnerable to neither.
Claiming that self-signed certs are the same as plain-old-http is as ridiculous as claiming that self-signed certs are secure. They won't protect you against an even mildly determined attacker, but they will stop e.g. the Google van from picking up your email. (Yes, that would have been a problem users could have fixed easily, but do you trust them? More layers of security, when easily implemented, are better.)
My contention had to do with the country of organization of the company and the country of origination of the request, nothing to do with the domain, so your question is off topic. (We're talking about CAs, not ICANN) But yes, when Col Gaddafi was undisputedly the legitimate head of Libya, his government should have had control of the.ly TLD. They're welcome to sell domains to anyone they like, Libyan or not, but I always thought American companies were crazy to use them.
Conversely, someone with a North American IP shouldn't be able to get a cert for the National Iranian Oil Co., at least not without triggering a sanity check in the system. I can't see why that would be controversial; clearly someone wasn't doing their job.
The wind objection seems to describe the Coriolis force pretty well, so even there the problem is just a lack of measuring ability. Oh, and parallax is notable because of the Earth's revolution around the sun, not rotation about it's axis, although there's probably some incredibly small effect from rotation as well.
GNOME will do exactly what you describe, depending on whether you left, right, or middle click the maximize button. I assume the same is true for KDE, and I'll bet there's an app that would enable it on Windows. I suspect Mac users are out of luck, though.
I can't completely answer the question, but it's worth noting that the system only works because the same entity has control of both the proxy and the client browser; they can set up their own internal CA if need be. And since the proxy is redirecting everything, trying to bypass it (e.g. running a browser of a usb drive) just means you can't get to anything over ssl.
Any time you're holding an asset, be it a security or real estate or tangible good, it's best to remember the FINRA warning: past performance is not an indication of future returns. That out of print book could just as easily lose value by the publisher printing it again (though it wouldn't go to zero), which is essentially what this is. If that never occurred to you, you have no business trading used books.
NB- I only discuss the value of the content here, the market for first editions would be unchanged by this, though demand could conceivably drop for other reasons.
I'll keep up the pedantry long enough to say that if someone is contributing something "as part of their job", it is the company doing the submitting via their employee as agent, so it's still the case the contributor owns the copyright. Now, if someone independently contributes something that they created for their employer, that's a different story with all sorts of variables.
Also as a cyclist, I hate to break it to you: they're already here. most of the new cars I see can't be heard over the wind unless they're rolling, and the drivers have smartphones...
So far it looks like he's taking a different tack, and arguing that the terms of the license are irrelevant since he never did anything that would require him to agree to them. Your point stands, regardless.
I'm surprised to hear that, since in the arts it's not at all uncommon to use public domain work as part of a copyrighted piece; it doesn't seem like there would be an issue with doing the same with software. Perhaps there is just some legal guidance necessary to clarify that, in which case this conference is long overdue.
NASA isn't actually capable of licensing their own work, since as a government organization they can't hold copyright. Presumably this conference is about how they interact with other people's work, so license choice would be made by a 3rd party. They could have some input when dealing with their contractors, but that's about it.
They talked about this explicitly at the conference, which you can hear all about if you want to wade through the 2 hours of discussion. The short version is that both are equally good targets, but that for the launch windows covered by this decadal, Uranus is notably easier to get to. If it gets pushed to the next decadal, that may change.
They answered that at the press conference, and said explicitly that both were equally good targets. The only reason they recommended Uranus in this decadal was a function of orbital mechanics; it's going to be notably easier to get there in the proposed launch windows. They also mentioned that if that mission gets pushed to the next decadal that could well change.
The only problem with that is that satellites aren't permanent, even in orbit around earth. If you're willing to concede my counting satellites that spent the entirety of their operational life around a planet we have: 1) Messenger will be at Mercury starting Next week. 2) Pioneer was at Venus. Akatsuki was supposed to but failed orbital insertion, may be recoverable on next pass. 4) A bunch of orbiters at Mars. 5) Galileo spent 8 years at Jupiter. 6) Cassini is still at Saturn. 7) The report recommends a Uranus orbiter.
So the only thing we're really missing is Neptune. And we've got Rosetta going to orbit a comet, and Dawn going to orbit Vesta then Ceres (admittedly for less than a year). I'd say we're doing all right on that track.
Um, they're planetary scientists. They were tasked with making recommendations for the planetary science portion of the budget. This has nothing to do with manned missions.
Oddly enough, unlike some other groups *cough*congress*/cough*, the scientists gave a list of priorities and basically said "Do all of group A, and with whatever money you have left over do as much of group B as possible." They even listed some missions (including get-your-ass-to-Mars-and-back) as "only do this if you can find a way to do it cheaper, otherwise move on to something else."
Slashdot Mirror
Touche. The funny thing is that I probably would vote for, just based on the little I know of her, over my current choices. I'll just be over here telling myself that doesn't have anything to do with appearance...
We should read the transcripts. I don't care if someone looks like Natalie Portman or sounds like Walter Cronkite, but I do care about their ability to put ideas together in coherent sentences.
failing to do enough good != doing evil.
Clearly there are times when inaction can be evil, but I can't see where this is one. And as you point out, they are trying (though I'm a bit skeptical that what Google's lobbying for and what I would want are the same, at least they're closer than e.g. Facebook), so even if this were one of those situations, they would still not be doing evil. At least in regard to your question.
I'm curious where you would suggest a hobbyist like myself get tech news, if not from Anand. It sounds like you have some better sources.
Could you give the source for that last quotation? It sums up more eloquently than I ever could the reasons I stopped playing.
Or label your buttons better than "Submit" and "Save". I honestly couldn't tell you which I would expect to activate the system.
But it's still better than http, because it's not trying to solve the vulnerability you're complaining about. Plain HTTP is vulnerable to MITM and ANY SORT OF EAVESDROPPING. Self signed certs are vulnerable to MITM, and eavesdropping (I believe) if the 3rd party catches all of the key exchange. CA signed certs are vulnerable to neither.
Claiming that self-signed certs are the same as plain-old-http is as ridiculous as claiming that self-signed certs are secure. They won't protect you against an even mildly determined attacker, but they will stop e.g. the Google van from picking up your email. (Yes, that would have been a problem users could have fixed easily, but do you trust them? More layers of security, when easily implemented, are better.)
My contention had to do with the country of organization of the company and the country of origination of the request, nothing to do with the domain, so your question is off topic. (We're talking about CAs, not ICANN) But yes, when Col Gaddafi was undisputedly the legitimate head of Libya, his government should have had control of the .ly TLD. They're welcome to sell domains to anyone they like, Libyan or not, but I always thought American companies were crazy to use them.
Conversely, someone with a North American IP shouldn't be able to get a cert for the National Iranian Oil Co., at least not without triggering a sanity check in the system. I can't see why that would be controversial; clearly someone wasn't doing their job.
The wind objection seems to describe the Coriolis force pretty well, so even there the problem is just a lack of measuring ability. Oh, and parallax is notable because of the Earth's revolution around the sun, not rotation about it's axis, although there's probably some incredibly small effect from rotation as well.
GNOME will do exactly what you describe, depending on whether you left, right, or middle click the maximize button. I assume the same is true for KDE, and I'll bet there's an app that would enable it on Windows. I suspect Mac users are out of luck, though.
I can't completely answer the question, but it's worth noting that the system only works because the same entity has control of both the proxy and the client browser; they can set up their own internal CA if need be. And since the proxy is redirecting everything, trying to bypass it (e.g. running a browser of a usb drive) just means you can't get to anything over ssl.
Any time you're holding an asset, be it a security or real estate or tangible good, it's best to remember the FINRA warning: past performance is not an indication of future returns. That out of print book could just as easily lose value by the publisher printing it again (though it wouldn't go to zero), which is essentially what this is. If that never occurred to you, you have no business trading used books.
NB- I only discuss the value of the content here, the market for first editions would be unchanged by this, though demand could conceivably drop for other reasons.
I'll keep up the pedantry long enough to say that if someone is contributing something "as part of their job", it is the company doing the submitting via their employee as agent, so it's still the case the contributor owns the copyright. Now, if someone independently contributes something that they created for their employer, that's a different story with all sorts of variables.
Tatooine is a bit of a trek at sublight speeds, and the earthquake took down their hyperdrive
At the moment, not having enough plutonium is exactly the opposite of Japan's problem.
Also as a cyclist, I hate to break it to you: they're already here. most of the new cars I see can't be heard over the wind unless they're rolling, and the drivers have smartphones...
So far it looks like he's taking a different tack, and arguing that the terms of the license are irrelevant since he never did anything that would require him to agree to them. Your point stands, regardless.
I'm surprised to hear that, since in the arts it's not at all uncommon to use public domain work as part of a copyrighted piece; it doesn't seem like there would be an issue with doing the same with software. Perhaps there is just some legal guidance necessary to clarify that, in which case this conference is long overdue.
NASA isn't actually capable of licensing their own work, since as a government organization they can't hold copyright. Presumably this conference is about how they interact with other people's work, so license choice would be made by a 3rd party. They could have some input when dealing with their contractors, but that's about it.
They talked about this explicitly at the conference, which you can hear all about if you want to wade through the 2 hours of discussion. The short version is that both are equally good targets, but that for the launch windows covered by this decadal, Uranus is notably easier to get to. If it gets pushed to the next decadal, that may change.
They answered that at the press conference, and said explicitly that both were equally good targets. The only reason they recommended Uranus in this decadal was a function of orbital mechanics; it's going to be notably easier to get there in the proposed launch windows. They also mentioned that if that mission gets pushed to the next decadal that could well change.
The only problem with that is that satellites aren't permanent, even in orbit around earth. If you're willing to concede my counting satellites that spent the entirety of their operational life around a planet we have:
1) Messenger will be at Mercury starting Next week.
2) Pioneer was at Venus. Akatsuki was supposed to but failed orbital insertion, may be recoverable on next pass.
4) A bunch of orbiters at Mars.
5) Galileo spent 8 years at Jupiter.
6) Cassini is still at Saturn.
7) The report recommends a Uranus orbiter.
So the only thing we're really missing is Neptune. And we've got Rosetta going to orbit a comet, and Dawn going to orbit Vesta then Ceres (admittedly for less than a year). I'd say we're doing all right on that track.
Um, they're planetary scientists. They were tasked with making recommendations for the planetary science portion of the budget. This has nothing to do with manned missions.
Oddly enough, unlike some other groups *cough*congress*/cough*, the scientists gave a list of priorities and basically said "Do all of group A, and with whatever money you have left over do as much of group B as possible." They even listed some missions (including get-your-ass-to-Mars-and-back) as "only do this if you can find a way to do it cheaper, otherwise move on to something else."