I agree they should be punished. But the reality is that late passengers will firstly hold up a plane for a short period (notice the headcounts they do when a person is missing?) and secondly will holdup airport resources for rebooking, re-clearing security, removing baggage from planes, etc.
It isn't easy to just punish the offender without causing a knock-on effect on everyone else.
But like DarkOx I am asking you to explain your reasoning. DV certificates identify the machine on the other end for the purposes of creating an encrypted channel. So explain why its so bad?
Is SSH nothing more than security theater and we should all either fork out $600 for EV certificates on our servers or just settle with Telnet as well?
Typically the people who say DVs are theater are those who don't understand the purpose of DVs.
Yes even in those cases. A shitty mid 2000s era ADSL connection will happily support 4 HD streams at once. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about cable customers, those starting with the crappy 60mbit connections.
If you're a betting man let's make a bet. I could do with some very easy money.
Cool I win. I see the green "Secure" symbol at the top of the screen. Oh wait you didn't realise Slashdot has a DV certificate from Lets Encrypt did you... You're funny.
LetsEncrypt is literally the worst thing to happen to Security on the internet. Its theater and its dangerous.
Oh? Please expand on your reasoning. What makes Lets Encrypt any worse than any other DV issuer? When you're done answering I'll tell you why they are a damn sight better than most.
IMO all certificates should be EV in the current internet if we want security.
Every house should be made of solid steel and have no windows either. But total security is impractical and also quite pointless. I don't care about some random hacker taking over all of Slashdot via a sophisticated attack in order to read some user comments. That doesn't however mean I want to blast those comments back and forth across the airwaves in plain text at an internet cafe.
There are solutions in between Fort Knox and having a house made entirely of paper, and there are needs for those solutions too.
Does Let's Encrypt verify identity, I can't find anything on their site about it.
If a CA is not verifying identity then what use is their certificate?
What identify are you trying to verify? The identify of the machine in question? That's called Domain Validation, and yes Lets Encrypt does that by requiring that you prove that the certificate being issued for domain x is actually for domain x by showing that the machine actually is in charge of domain x by changing something on domain x during the issuing process.
If you're asking about the identity of the owner of the machine, well that's an Extended Validation certificate and Lets Encrypt doesn't issue those, and to be frank most of the internet doesn't really need it.
While most SSL certificates are nothing but a 1/2 page file of random text they can cost upwards of 600$. I've been utilizing LetsEncrypt because...honestly I'm too dumb to understand the difference between a DV certificate and an EV certificate, and I believe that certificates should be priced according to the number of bytes in a text file because I don't even know how to computer.
FTFY. Was I right? I got it right didn't I.
By the way, Lets Encrypt rose out of the idea of automating checks, not out of the ashes of stupidity. That is user stupidity, or rather stupidity of people like you.
Why not summon the head of Facebook's UK operations first? I don't understand their obsession. Did they ask the UK based employees already and not get a satisfactory answer, or something that can only be answered by the CEO?
You should learn the difference between the Parent and the GrandParent. The post being referred to never said USB OTG, and was referring to USB Bridged mode networking, something that works just fine in Windows to connect two hosts together but not in Linux.
What it's worth is irrelevant. You were talking about price comparisons based on monopolies and not the temporary effect of the coin market. So only the MSRP is relevant.
The 1060 is not even high end??!
To which I again suggest you define where the goalposts should be. You use "high end" arbitrarily. The 1060 is just as high end as a $200 card from well back in the day you're comparing it to in your original post, able to edge out similar levels of performance (high to ultra high quality at native resolution of common screens) from the games of the time. Back in the day you only needed to spend $350 to play Crysis on the largest possible screen you could find. Likewise you don't need to pay more (once this coin thing is done) than $250 to play any current game at almost maxed out settings. So what's the beef?
Something is up and I smell monopoly.
Also comparing it to a device that is sold at a loss to lock users into an ecosystem is quite disingenuous. Something does smell in that comparison, but it's on the Microsoft side, rather than the NVIDIA / AMD side.
By the way it's a duopoly, not a monopoly, and they aren't inherently bad but they do need to be managed.
People, who watch regular TV, will not be using the increased bandwidth for as long every day to stream movies.
Your post makes no sense. Steaming movies is possible on even the shittiest cable connection Comcast offers and uses a pittance of the bandwidth. Hell last holiday I didn't even bother to give up my Netflix binge habit when the hotel WiFi sucked. Just used my phone along with it's expensive data plan and cap and moved on.
This one is at odds with most of the others. The whole point of mergers is to do the same thing using less resources by combining the services and utilities of both sides, and assuming we live in fairy land and savings were passed onto consumers instead of share holders, the mass layoffs would be positive for all except those being laid off.
But in this case, even combined they are still smaller than either Verizon and AT&T.
So the argument being: Providing we don't join the oligopoly it must be good? Size and market power are really only a small portions of the pie chart of reasons consolidation often screws consumers.
The other key difference here is the use of waste heat for remote central heating. I'm not sure how they do it in North America but in Europe and Russia many places have dedicated district area central heating plants, either fueled by waste reprocessing, cogeneration on the back of power plants, or in some horrid cases, standalone. By combining it with the power plant you get massive increases in efficiency from the fuel source as you can repurpose waste heat that is too cool to generate power, and put it to use for heating systems.
Also information is all over the place. That Wikipedia article says the KLT-40S used in this installation needs 14% enriched uranium. An article from Power Technology says it uses KLT-40C which combined generate 300MW of heat. https://www.power-technology.c...
Where did he say they sit idle? He said they get paid for 9 months of work.
It was implied in the entire rest of the the OP's uneducated post. Context matters for understanding of English sentences, or didn't you learn that at school?
but they also love to have the public not notice that the pay is for only about 9 months per year of work
Hi, husband of a teacher here. Not only does my wife *work* for 12 months of the year she also *works* in the evenings, after hours, answering student questions, marking assignments, exams, and preparing the next class. She only attends a classroom for 9 months of the year.
But thanks for mentioning this. With this one line you have instantly shown the Slashdot readership that you simply don't have the slightest clue about teachers or teaching. That's assuming people bothered to read through the rest of the crap and make it down to your 2nd garbage paragraph.
About the only thing right in your entire post is your last 2 sentences. But that has nothing at all to do with teachers, their pay, or their unions.
Slashdot Mirror
The late passengers should miss their plane.
I agree they should be punished. But the reality is that late passengers will firstly hold up a plane for a short period (notice the headcounts they do when a person is missing?) and secondly will holdup airport resources for rebooking, re-clearing security, removing baggage from planes, etc.
It isn't easy to just punish the offender without causing a knock-on effect on everyone else.
But like DarkOx I am asking you to explain your reasoning. DV certificates identify the machine on the other end for the purposes of creating an encrypted channel. So explain why its so bad?
Is SSH nothing more than security theater and we should all either fork out $600 for EV certificates on our servers or just settle with Telnet as well?
Typically the people who say DVs are theater are those who don't understand the purpose of DVs.
Yes even in those cases. A shitty mid 2000s era ADSL connection will happily support 4 HD streams at once. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about cable customers, those starting with the crappy 60mbit connections.
All of the questions MPs want answered pertain to decisions being made by Zuckerberg and his US-based subordinates.
Ahhh so not Zuckerberg, but a bunch of people under him. So why not just ask their local UK office. I'm sure they can get that information for them.
Except they don't. Summoning someone foreign to something like this is not at all about answering questions, it's about staging a public show.
Maybe you should do it now. Please. And make sure you change your settings so you can't override and then accept an untrusted certificate
Come post on your reply here on Slashdot when you're done.
If you're a betting man let's make a bet. I could do with some very easy money.
Cool I win. I see the green "Secure" symbol at the top of the screen. Oh wait you didn't realise Slashdot has a DV certificate from Lets Encrypt did you... You're funny.
LetsEncrypt is literally the worst thing to happen to Security on the internet. Its theater and its dangerous.
Oh? Please expand on your reasoning. What makes Lets Encrypt any worse than any other DV issuer? When you're done answering I'll tell you why they are a damn sight better than most.
IMO all certificates should be EV in the current internet if we want security.
Every house should be made of solid steel and have no windows either. But total security is impractical and also quite pointless. I don't care about some random hacker taking over all of Slashdot via a sophisticated attack in order to read some user comments. That doesn't however mean I want to blast those comments back and forth across the airwaves in plain text at an internet cafe.
There are solutions in between Fort Knox and having a house made entirely of paper, and there are needs for those solutions too.
Does Let's Encrypt verify identity, I can't find anything on their site about it.
If a CA is not verifying identity then what use is their certificate?
What identify are you trying to verify? The identify of the machine in question? That's called Domain Validation, and yes Lets Encrypt does that by requiring that you prove that the certificate being issued for domain x is actually for domain x by showing that the machine actually is in charge of domain x by changing something on domain x during the issuing process.
If you're asking about the identity of the owner of the machine, well that's an Extended Validation certificate and Lets Encrypt doesn't issue those, and to be frank most of the internet doesn't really need it.
While most SSL certificates are nothing but a 1/2 page file of random text they can cost upwards of 600$. I've been utilizing LetsEncrypt because...honestly I'm too dumb to understand the difference between a DV certificate and an EV certificate, and I believe that certificates should be priced according to the number of bytes in a text file because I don't even know how to computer.
FTFY. Was I right? I got it right didn't I.
By the way, Lets Encrypt rose out of the idea of automating checks, not out of the ashes of stupidity. That is user stupidity, or rather stupidity of people like you.
Why not summon the head of Facebook's UK operations first? I don't understand their obsession. Did they ask the UK based employees already and not get a satisfactory answer, or something that can only be answered by the CEO?
No. That's why they said USB OTG.
You should learn the difference between the Parent and the GrandParent. The post being referred to never said USB OTG, and was referring to USB Bridged mode networking, something that works just fine in Windows to connect two hosts together but not in Linux.
Basically, is like plugging 2 network cables in 2 ports of the same server using link aggregation
Or it's like plugging in 1 network cable to gigabit equipment since it also uses 4 differential channels serially :-)
whether you can make it function full-speed or completely is a different matter
So you can make one but it won't be functional or meet the required spec that the OP wanted to test against. Got it.
Except a 1060 is worth $390 today.
What it's worth is irrelevant. You were talking about price comparisons based on monopolies and not the temporary effect of the coin market. So only the MSRP is relevant.
The 1060 is not even high end??!
To which I again suggest you define where the goalposts should be. You use "high end" arbitrarily. The 1060 is just as high end as a $200 card from well back in the day you're comparing it to in your original post, able to edge out similar levels of performance (high to ultra high quality at native resolution of common screens) from the games of the time. Back in the day you only needed to spend $350 to play Crysis on the largest possible screen you could find. Likewise you don't need to pay more (once this coin thing is done) than $250 to play any current game at almost maxed out settings. So what's the beef?
Something is up and I smell monopoly.
Also comparing it to a device that is sold at a loss to lock users into an ecosystem is quite disingenuous. Something does smell in that comparison, but it's on the Microsoft side, rather than the NVIDIA / AMD side.
By the way it's a duopoly, not a monopoly, and they aren't inherently bad but they do need to be managed.
So they weren't actually discs at all, but pictures of discs?
People, who watch regular TV, will not be using the increased bandwidth for as long every day to stream movies.
Your post makes no sense. Steaming movies is possible on even the shittiest cable connection Comcast offers and uses a pittance of the bandwidth. Hell last holiday I didn't even bother to give up my Netflix binge habit when the hotel WiFi sucked. Just used my phone along with it's expensive data plan and cap and moved on.
Good god! I would rather have an enema than have to deal with Comcast technical support.
Why not both? When you get screwed by Comcast the least you could do is prepare beforehand so it doesn't get messy.
mass layoffs
This one is at odds with most of the others. The whole point of mergers is to do the same thing using less resources by combining the services and utilities of both sides, and assuming we live in fairy land and savings were passed onto consumers instead of share holders, the mass layoffs would be positive for all except those being laid off.
But in this case, even combined they are still smaller than either Verizon and AT&T.
So the argument being: Providing we don't join the oligopoly it must be good? Size and market power are really only a small portions of the pie chart of reasons consolidation often screws consumers.
But why? Even the combined company would still be smaller than either AT&T or Verizon.
Nothing good has come from the consolidation of an industry already considered an oligopoly.
Why do you think it's called an "info" tainment instead of "entertainment" system? Because is displays a random wikipedia page on startup?
The other key difference here is the use of waste heat for remote central heating. I'm not sure how they do it in North America but in Europe and Russia many places have dedicated district area central heating plants, either fueled by waste reprocessing, cogeneration on the back of power plants, or in some horrid cases, standalone. By combining it with the power plant you get massive increases in efficiency from the fuel source as you can repurpose waste heat that is too cool to generate power, and put it to use for heating systems.
Also information is all over the place. That Wikipedia article says the KLT-40S used in this installation needs 14% enriched uranium.
An article from Power Technology says it uses KLT-40C which combined generate 300MW of heat. https://www.power-technology.c...
Where did he say they sit idle? He said they get paid for 9 months of work.
It was implied in the entire rest of the the OP's uneducated post. Context matters for understanding of English sentences, or didn't you learn that at school?
but they also love to have the public not notice that the pay is for only about 9 months per year of work
Hi, husband of a teacher here. Not only does my wife *work* for 12 months of the year she also *works* in the evenings, after hours, answering student questions, marking assignments, exams, and preparing the next class. She only attends a classroom for 9 months of the year.
But thanks for mentioning this. With this one line you have instantly shown the Slashdot readership that you simply don't have the slightest clue about teachers or teaching. That's assuming people bothered to read through the rest of the crap and make it down to your 2nd garbage paragraph.
About the only thing right in your entire post is your last 2 sentences. But that has nothing at all to do with teachers, their pay, or their unions.