I thought the whole point of Twitter was for short messages. If one is going to store the payload elsewhere and only reference it in the tweet, there might be a better choice of medium.
As it should. When someone presents to me a document identifying themselves and it's homemade with their parents signature on it, I also make sure to proceed cautiously. If I were acting as an agent on behalf of a user, I would tell the user such in very clear terms.
We'll assume a static page stored in memory cache. Anything that happens before that (dynamic generation, database access, etc, etc) will happen in both SSL and non-SSL scenarios, presumably.
So, what is the difference between: 1. Take the page and build and HTTP response out of it. 2. Take the page, get the key, encrypt the page, build an HTTP response out of it.
The difference is significant. I can measure the increase in operation 2 from operation 1 over some number of trials. It's an order of magnitude even, which is quite obviously significant.
Why do you need a cert to establish privacy (protect against eavesdropping)?
By privacy, I'll assume you mean that communication between you and site X are not meaningfully readable by another party for as long as the information is relevant (say at least your and your offspring's lifetime as a good rule of thumb). For that, one must be able to encrypt the information in a manner such that only the two parties can read it, *and* verify the identity of the other party. Otherwise, one's privacy is compromised.
Why can't the (one way) authenticity exchange take place *after* basic security is established.
See above. One cannot have privacy without authenticating both parties.
Why is there no mode with encryption, but without the bother of an SSL certificate at all?
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Whatever one calls such a mode, mere encryption means one's privacy is compromised.
Why was it ever possible to send a password in clear text to begin with?
A password is data. Detection of which data is a password and which is not is neigh impossible. One must rely on the design of the site in question to do the right thing.
Summary: Encrypt is putting an envelope on your message. It provides privacy to some degree. Then, when you throw out the authentication of both parties aspect of SSL, you are essentially giving the envelope to someone blindly and hoping that they are the addressee.
Why does it make sense for an unlimited plan? Does that change the silliness of charging differently depending on how rather than how much data you use?
It is on the part of Time Warner. They were the ones that advertised their new feature. They were the ones that benefited from potential increased subscriber numbers (from people that found the service not worth the cost in the past but had their minds tipped in favor of it by the new feature). They were the ones that didn't get permission from broadcasters beforehand or fully understand the regulatory implications of what they were going to do.
Basically, they took the risk, it's their responsibility. The onus is on them to do the right thing and fully refund any customer that calls and asks for a refund based on being misled. I'm not saying the legally have to (maybe they do, for all I know), but they should in my view of morality.
If I start a subscription read-all-you-can book site and then get told by the publishers I'm violating their copyright I shouldn't be able to claim to my customers "sorry, we're reducing our catalog to project Gutenberg titles. So sorry, so sad. Feel free to cancel when your 3-month subscription is up if you don't like it."
It is not a free service, you must be a subscriber, for which you pay. They might have added a feature to their existing package without changing that packages rate, but the service is not free. For those that may have subscribed to the package because this feature addition was what tipped the cost/value analysis for them, it was a bait and switch.
What I agree that it's creepy, I don't think we should start making laws against collecting information. Using it in a way that's damaging yes, but collecting no. Of course, that's not easy to enforce but if we start forbidding collecting and analyzing information that's visible to the public we're crippling science. Essentially the line between "I'm okay with people making a note of what I was wearing when I went out today" and "I'm not okay with people making a note of what color I wear most often" is too blurry.
While I agree that the quality of the stories posted to Slashdot is subjective, so is the definition of news for nerds. Why should nerds not be interested in politics, entertainment, economics, or what have you as it relates to them, their hobbies, their jobs, etc? If Slashdot only covered new concepts in mathematics and science, it wouldn't be any more interesting than reading over the abstracts of your favorite journals. Slashdot give us a bit more breadth than our journals do.
I wrote a long post and then realized it was tl;dr. So, I'd instead just like to point out certificates work on a network of trust. If you present a certificate that no one else trusts, why should I? The browser behavior is absolutely the right one. "This guy is presenting a certificate he signed himself. No one I trust trusts him. What should I do?"
I didn't realize we're excluding wireless providers, but even if we do then we're down to seven, which is still 2-3x the purported maximum of 2-3 providers. If you click the detail link and do your search there it will not limit the list. There's still a lot of duplicates though, so counting is annoying. The crux is, if we're talking about cable ISPs, then yes, the monopoly/duopoly state is the most common, but if we're talking about ISPs in general (excluding dialup) then there are far more choices.
Yes, I agree that phones with Internet connections have made data accessibility more mobile and that it's world changing, but in order for access to the data to be worthwhile the data must be there which it would not be without the Internet. I base my ranking on what I would rather have if I could only have one: a worldwide network that gives me access to varied data, or a mobile device that can move data. Both important, but given only one, I'd take the network and deal with clunky large terminals than have a terminal I can put in my pocket but have to pre-load with data as there's no network for it to use to access troves of data. Not saying mobile terminals aren't world-changing, just don't agree they're as world changing as the network they act as terminals to.
I'm not sure he's lying. I think it's more like logical prediction. If Netflix is making a profit at price point X and they're profit is not 30% then when Apple comes along to take 30% of X Netflix will be out that money. Being a company they will pass that cost to the customer which is a 43% increase in end-user price. Now, Apple may very well not allow an application that charges more than the non-application price. Netflix has two ways of recourse here. One, they could raise the price across the board by 43%, keeping parity between iPhone and other platforms, or they could introduce a whole new service that is almost like the existing service and charge 43% more for it.
You honestly believe that having a phone and small touch screen computer in one device is at least as world changing as a network that can carry data (mostly unhindered) to a great portion of the world?
You're right, I was perhaps underestimating the repeats. Turns out there are nine not 10+. My point was that there's not 2-3 in most cities. Yes, not every provider is going to service every address but the situation is not as dire as some people would paint. Most people look at the big budget advertised ISPs and don't bother to look into the Speakeasy's of the world and miss out.
I'll bite. x/u is more 'fair'. But that's not what they want. If they were to compete on price per kilobyte where price was tiered by bandwidth cap (you know, the actual k KB/s rate) I'd be fine with that. But, what they want is to charge a minimum that's actually pretty hefty.
Let me take number from my example. I have a 3mb/s connection for $99 a month. I have no cap and no throttling and always get my 3mb/s. In one month I can transfer (3,145,728 bits/second * 60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day * 30 days/month) = 8,153,726,976,000 bits (7,776,00 megabits) a month. So, I pay about 1.2263*10^-11 dollar per bit, or 1.25*10^-5 ($0.0000125 per megabit). Now, a Comcast customer paying $57.95 a month for 150GB is paying ($57.85 / 150*8*1024*1024 bits) = 4.5975*10-8 dollars per bit.
So, Comcast's cheaper and faster service costs 3,768 times more per data transferred and allows me to transfer 1.54*10-4 times as much data per month. *That's what this is about*. My ISP can afford to sell me my connection with no cap a month and make a tidy profit. Comcast wants a bigger profit.
DSLreports is showing 20+ ISPs for my zip code in a non-major American city. Perhaps I'm lucky. Let's try Rupert, ID (pretty small I think). Yup, just one. How about a random suburb: Doylestown, PA. Over ten.
So, I'm not sure where you're getting that major cities have 3 ISPs from.
I pay $100 for my 3Mbit connection. You might find that expensive, but I have no caps, no filters, no ports blocked, a static IP, a tech out in a few hours if I need, no equipment to rent, and someone that answers the phone in a couple of rings. I could pay less for a 1.5Mbit connection. Yes, it's great and all to have a ton of bandwidth, but if that comes with caps, variable speeds, tech support that requires you to talk to six people before you get one that can speak to your problem competently, and an agenda to push regarding their other services, no thanks.
So what if a 6Mbit connection is $199 if you are actually getting that (24/7 with real quick technical support) and unfettered ability to actually use it however you like (no caps, no filters, etc, etc)
I have no idea how it is out in rural areas, but here in Seattle I have twenty or so ISPs listed for my zip code. I did not check each of them if they'd service my particular home though, only by zip code. My ISP gives me a static IP address, no up or down cap, no filters, no blocked ports, no throttling, and I get my advertised speed all day every day. If there's a problem, I get someone on the phone without waiting in queue and they're usually down the street from me. If the problem is my hardware or the line, they have someone out within half a day or so. I do pay more than I would at Comcast or Qwest though and the speed offered at that price isn't as fast as the advertised rate for Comast, but in return I get a circuit that's not oversold, I am not forced to rent any equipment from them, and a technician on the phone in minutes.
So, look around, a lot of the smaller ISPs might not promise the ginormous bandwidth and might charge you a bit more, but you'll get what you paid for and never have to deal with silly cost-cutting things like caps or filters or customer support that is thousands of miles away or whatnot.
The United States has plenty of cooperative markets. Some states are more conscious about such things than others and will have more (there are more within 30km of me than the entire states of Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, etc).
You do realize that all opinion on whether a movie is any good or not is subjective? Unless we're talking about objective measures such as box office sales as being a "good movie".
I wanted to list topics that I thought would make for interesting stories. I don't care that I'm not a "Normal Person" in your eye, those would be interesting stories and some of them have already been made into movies by non-Hollywood directors.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the whole point of Twitter was for short messages. If one is going to store the payload elsewhere and only reference it in the tweet, there might be a better choice of medium.
As it should. When someone presents to me a document identifying themselves and it's homemade with their parents signature on it, I also make sure to proceed cautiously. If I were acting as an agent on behalf of a user, I would tell the user such in very clear terms.
We'll assume a static page stored in memory cache. Anything that happens before that (dynamic generation, database access, etc, etc) will happen in both SSL and non-SSL scenarios, presumably.
So, what is the difference between:
1. Take the page and build and HTTP response out of it.
2. Take the page, get the key, encrypt the page, build an HTTP response out of it.
The difference is significant. I can measure the increase in operation 2 from operation 1 over some number of trials. It's an order of magnitude even, which is quite obviously significant.
Why do you need a cert to establish privacy (protect against eavesdropping)?
By privacy, I'll assume you mean that communication between you and site X are not meaningfully readable by another party for as long as the information is relevant (say at least your and your offspring's lifetime as a good rule of thumb). For that, one must be able to encrypt the information in a manner such that only the two parties can read it, *and* verify the identity of the other party. Otherwise, one's privacy is compromised.
Why can't the (one way) authenticity exchange take place *after* basic security is established.
See above. One cannot have privacy without authenticating both parties.
Why is there no mode with encryption, but without the bother of an SSL certificate at all?
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Whatever one calls such a mode, mere encryption means one's privacy is compromised.
Why was it ever possible to send a password in clear text to begin with?
A password is data. Detection of which data is a password and which is not is neigh impossible. One must rely on the design of the site in question to do the right thing.
Summary: Encrypt is putting an envelope on your message. It provides privacy to some degree. Then, when you throw out the authentication of both parties aspect of SSL, you are essentially giving the envelope to someone blindly and hoping that they are the addressee.
Why does it make sense for an unlimited plan? Does that change the silliness of charging differently depending on how rather than how much data you use?
I'm not even remotely interested in getting the investors necessary involved in order to buy the spectrum I'd need.
It is on the part of Time Warner. They were the ones that advertised their new feature. They were the ones that benefited from potential increased subscriber numbers (from people that found the service not worth the cost in the past but had their minds tipped in favor of it by the new feature). They were the ones that didn't get permission from broadcasters beforehand or fully understand the regulatory implications of what they were going to do.
Basically, they took the risk, it's their responsibility. The onus is on them to do the right thing and fully refund any customer that calls and asks for a refund based on being misled. I'm not saying the legally have to (maybe they do, for all I know), but they should in my view of morality.
If I start a subscription read-all-you-can book site and then get told by the publishers I'm violating their copyright I shouldn't be able to claim to my customers "sorry, we're reducing our catalog to project Gutenberg titles. So sorry, so sad. Feel free to cancel when your 3-month subscription is up if you don't like it."
It is not a free service, you must be a subscriber, for which you pay. They might have added a feature to their existing package without changing that packages rate, but the service is not free. For those that may have subscribed to the package because this feature addition was what tipped the cost/value analysis for them, it was a bait and switch.
What I agree that it's creepy, I don't think we should start making laws against collecting information. Using it in a way that's damaging yes, but collecting no. Of course, that's not easy to enforce but if we start forbidding collecting and analyzing information that's visible to the public we're crippling science. Essentially the line between "I'm okay with people making a note of what I was wearing when I went out today" and "I'm not okay with people making a note of what color I wear most often" is too blurry.
While I agree that the quality of the stories posted to Slashdot is subjective, so is the definition of news for nerds. Why should nerds not be interested in politics, entertainment, economics, or what have you as it relates to them, their hobbies, their jobs, etc? If Slashdot only covered new concepts in mathematics and science, it wouldn't be any more interesting than reading over the abstracts of your favorite journals. Slashdot give us a bit more breadth than our journals do.
I wrote a long post and then realized it was tl;dr. So, I'd instead just like to point out certificates work on a network of trust. If you present a certificate that no one else trusts, why should I? The browser behavior is absolutely the right one. "This guy is presenting a certificate he signed himself. No one I trust trusts him. What should I do?"
I didn't realize we're excluding wireless providers, but even if we do then we're down to seven, which is still 2-3x the purported maximum of 2-3 providers. If you click the detail link and do your search there it will not limit the list. There's still a lot of duplicates though, so counting is annoying. The crux is, if we're talking about cable ISPs, then yes, the monopoly/duopoly state is the most common, but if we're talking about ISPs in general (excluding dialup) then there are far more choices.
Yes, I agree that phones with Internet connections have made data accessibility more mobile and that it's world changing, but in order for access to the data to be worthwhile the data must be there which it would not be without the Internet. I base my ranking on what I would rather have if I could only have one: a worldwide network that gives me access to varied data, or a mobile device that can move data. Both important, but given only one, I'd take the network and deal with clunky large terminals than have a terminal I can put in my pocket but have to pre-load with data as there's no network for it to use to access troves of data. Not saying mobile terminals aren't world-changing, just don't agree they're as world changing as the network they act as terminals to.
I'm not sure he's lying. I think it's more like logical prediction. If Netflix is making a profit at price point X and they're profit is not 30% then when Apple comes along to take 30% of X Netflix will be out that money. Being a company they will pass that cost to the customer which is a 43% increase in end-user price. Now, Apple may very well not allow an application that charges more than the non-application price. Netflix has two ways of recourse here. One, they could raise the price across the board by 43%, keeping parity between iPhone and other platforms, or they could introduce a whole new service that is almost like the existing service and charge 43% more for it.
You honestly believe that having a phone and small touch screen computer in one device is at least as world changing as a network that can carry data (mostly unhindered) to a great portion of the world?
I see: Verizon, Speakeasy, Broadview, Earthlink, Cavalier, Comcast, Hotwire, Cricket, Clearwire.
You're right, I was perhaps underestimating the repeats. Turns out there are nine not 10+. My point was that there's not 2-3 in most cities. Yes, not every provider is going to service every address but the situation is not as dire as some people would paint. Most people look at the big budget advertised ISPs and don't bother to look into the Speakeasy's of the world and miss out.
I don't know how you are checking this. I just plugged in 19019 and got like 10+ results. Are you ignoring DSL?
I'll bite. x/u is more 'fair'. But that's not what they want. If they were to compete on price per kilobyte where price was tiered by bandwidth cap (you know, the actual k KB/s rate) I'd be fine with that. But, what they want is to charge a minimum that's actually pretty hefty.
Let me take number from my example. I have a 3mb/s connection for $99 a month. I have no cap and no throttling and always get my 3mb/s. In one month I can transfer (3,145,728 bits/second * 60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day * 30 days/month) = 8,153,726,976,000 bits (7,776,00 megabits) a month. So, I pay about 1.2263*10^-11 dollar per bit, or 1.25*10^-5 ($0.0000125 per megabit). Now, a Comcast customer paying $57.95 a month for 150GB is paying ($57.85 / 150*8*1024*1024 bits) = 4.5975*10-8 dollars per bit.
So, Comcast's cheaper and faster service costs 3,768 times more per data transferred and allows me to transfer 1.54*10-4 times as much data per month. *That's what this is about*. My ISP can afford to sell me my connection with no cap a month and make a tidy profit. Comcast wants a bigger profit.
DSLreports is showing 20+ ISPs for my zip code in a non-major American city. Perhaps I'm lucky. Let's try Rupert, ID (pretty small I think). Yup, just one. How about a random suburb: Doylestown, PA. Over ten.
So, I'm not sure where you're getting that major cities have 3 ISPs from.
I pay $100 for my 3Mbit connection. You might find that expensive, but I have no caps, no filters, no ports blocked, a static IP, a tech out in a few hours if I need, no equipment to rent, and someone that answers the phone in a couple of rings. I could pay less for a 1.5Mbit connection. Yes, it's great and all to have a ton of bandwidth, but if that comes with caps, variable speeds, tech support that requires you to talk to six people before you get one that can speak to your problem competently, and an agenda to push regarding their other services, no thanks.
So what if a 6Mbit connection is $199 if you are actually getting that (24/7 with real quick technical support) and unfettered ability to actually use it however you like (no caps, no filters, etc, etc)
I have no idea how it is out in rural areas, but here in Seattle I have twenty or so ISPs listed for my zip code. I did not check each of them if they'd service my particular home though, only by zip code. My ISP gives me a static IP address, no up or down cap, no filters, no blocked ports, no throttling, and I get my advertised speed all day every day. If there's a problem, I get someone on the phone without waiting in queue and they're usually down the street from me. If the problem is my hardware or the line, they have someone out within half a day or so. I do pay more than I would at Comcast or Qwest though and the speed offered at that price isn't as fast as the advertised rate for Comast, but in return I get a circuit that's not oversold, I am not forced to rent any equipment from them, and a technician on the phone in minutes.
So, look around, a lot of the smaller ISPs might not promise the ginormous bandwidth and might charge you a bit more, but you'll get what you paid for and never have to deal with silly cost-cutting things like caps or filters or customer support that is thousands of miles away or whatnot.
The United States has plenty of cooperative markets. Some states are more conscious about such things than others and will have more (there are more within 30km of me than the entire states of Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, etc).
You do realize that all opinion on whether a movie is any good or not is subjective? Unless we're talking about objective measures such as box office sales as being a "good movie".
I wanted to list topics that I thought would make for interesting stories. I don't care that I'm not a "Normal Person" in your eye, those would be interesting stories and some of them have already been made into movies by non-Hollywood directors.
Yes, some of these have been filmed already. I merely meant to provide a list of topics that had potential. Those made, must have had.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smartphone -- Refer to the market share graph based on Gartner data.
You state "facts", but provide no data to support the 80% figure.