You know.. Verisign did nothing wrong here.. but here's my beef with the way certification is handled these days. The public accepts what it shouldn't. Here's why.
When browser came of age, and security was of great concern, if you recall, the main hubub was about credit card information, and how SSL protected it. In other words, ask joe average internet user what certificates are for, and he'll say 'for encryption, so my credit card doens't get stolen by hackers listening in on the line'. That's what the press implied, and that's how people thought.
Now.. the REAL reason the certificate system works as it does is a bit different. It's not for the encryption, but for the authentication. A properly signed Verisign certificate, presented by CDNow.com is supposed to let you know that CDNow.com *IS* CDNow.com, and not an imposter. It's supposed to let you konw that they are a real business, and that they have proven this, with legal documents, to Verisign. This is why Verisign 'signs' the certificate. You see, it was never supposed to be about granting encryption priveleges; only about authenticating the merchant. So. Technically, we think it's kind of necessary to have a Verisign for commercial transactions.. but they rose to power based on the fact that people thought it was necessary JUST FOR ENCRYPTION (and hey.. if you didnt' have a verisign signed cert, browsers would bitch... so in the publics eye, you were not trustworthy if you didn't have their signature).
Fine. For financial transactions, fine. My security and piece of mind comes from knowing that Verisign says this company is real, and I have someone to chase down when they overcharge my card.
Now.. software... Verisign signing software? Why? To prove it came safely from the download site to my HD? WHy do I need a verisign to do that? IN E-commerce, verisign fills a need. With downloadable software... like Active-X, where the security model kind of SUCKS, it would make much more sense if that signature implied omsething, like the software provider has guaranteed that this software follows certain guidelines... etc.....
You may be surprised at how cheap small color LCD screens are. LCD's get exponentially harder to build as the size goes up... this means tiny ones are dirt cheap, and big ones are really expensive.
a 1 inch color LCD screen is a only a few dollars.
Yes. As long as they are balanced. Remember, CD's can be of arbitrary size, and read from the inside out. These usually store about 50MB of data on them.
I don't look at it that way. It souds to me like he doesn't dwell on it! It was one of many projects he's worked on, and not somethign that defines his existence.
When asked if he could go back and change anything, his answer starts with 'But you can't go back...'.. which is true.
I see. A tradition of obscure administration practices. You know what? That's bull.
Regardless of pretty context-sensitive menus, etc.... there is *NO WAY* you can have the kind of flexibility you get from these 'obscure' practices that you can get from a pretty interface.
NO INTERFACE will make up for lack of knowledge. The current way most unix applications are administered forces one to learn a great deal about each application. This is GOOD.
It's when some retard builds an 'admin tool' that lets someone set up a web server with a bunch of other stuff, and not know a damn thign about the computer or the OS that Linux will become like Windows.
Bluetooth has nothing to do with wireless LAN stuff. NOTHING. It's not in competition with 802.11, and it's certainly not 'already out the door'. It's JUST barely coming out.
And it has TONS of support. The whole point is that bluetooth is a single $5 chip, that creates a 'personal area network' for about 10 meters around a device. Think palmpilot. Think printer. Think sharing data across the boardroom table WITHOUT IRDA.
Thinkg that this chip has the radio gear INSIDE it, and it's so cheap that *anything* can be enabled wirelessly.
It's not supposed to be fast. Or long range.
802.11 has not 'moved' to 11 Mbps. 802.11 covers MANY modulation schemes on different frequencies, and each has it's own speed..
Don't assert facts about things you are clueless about.
This is not quite true. Yes, at a higher frequency, you can transmit more data.. but this also depends on the exact modulation scheme used, and the size of the band used, and the power levels involved. You can also increase the amount of data you can send by increasing power. BlueTooth is SLOW. It's not supposed to be fast. It's not supposed to replace 802.11 wireless ethernet. It's for linking devices together.
Also, 900mhz cuts through walls like butter (that's why Cellular uses it....). 2.4Ghz sure doesn't.
Your cellphone has a range of quite a distance, through walls and everything, and operates at a much higher power.
Bluetooth has a range of 10 meters, IIRC.
Bluetooth is not for roaming around the city, and not even for wireless lan at home. It's so your laptop can communicate with the printer across the room from you, or so your palmtop can share data with the laptop of the guy sitting on the other end of the boardroom.
And isn't how it always is these days? The media senesationalizes whatever they feel like.... without regard to what people actually think.
The good thing about OS/X
on
MacOS X DP3
·
· Score: 2
The really nice thing about this is not whether os x is better than our other unix variants, blah blah blah... but whether existing mac users like it. If the existing mac user base switches to OS/X.... they will probably discover the wonders of unix sitting underneath it.
Uhh.. that's because Bluetooth has nothing to do with replacing wired networks. It's to link portable devices together, like what IRDA tries to do today (only a lot cooler)
They are unrelated. 802.11 is the wireless extension for ethernet (802.* is iEEE ethernet)
No, in 802.11, you don't need an access point. The access point is usually just a bridge, so you can hook into your lan (you could do this with a linux box, a wavelan card, and an ethernet card). Though, some access poitns support multiple cards, and just do the job well.
Bluetooth is to replace IRDA, and is not meant to replace wireless networking at all.
Yeah. Your wristwatch and PDA don't have enough juice to handle 802.11. Bluetooth is short range and more complicated.. meant for things like ptp links between printers/palmtops/radios/cellphones. Basically, everythign IRDA was going to revolutionize but sucked at.
Think of bluetooth as somethign to replace IRDA. That would be oversimplifying, but you get the idea. We don't need every device to behave like it's on ethernet.. we just need devices to be ableto speak to each other when they are in proximity. ie: palmtop to printer (wihtout perhaps having to point it at the printer).
To my understanding, bluetooth is not meant to solvethe wireless lan/wan problems that 802.11 is. Bluetooth is intended more to solve the last-yard problem. Something to universally take the place of IRDA devices as well as maybe patch cables for ethernet. It's meant so nearby devices can talk to each other easily, without the headaches of IRDA... it's not meant as a networking solution.
Re:Obfuscated DeCSS programming contest
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 2
We must remember that when it comes to Law, it is not a game of pure logic. Though what you say makes sense from a technical/logic point of view, the judge will say one thing: "I stated in a court order that linking to this material was forbidden, and regardless of what convoluted methods you used, you still violated that order."
Not like we would have already seen it on Freshmeat... And since when is another development kernel release NEWS FOR NERDS/STUFF THAT MATTERS? Anyone who gives a hoot about new linux kernels will be checking kernel.org for their new kernels.. Give me a break.
Unless I'm missing something.. is there something great about this new kernel? Tons of new long-awaited features? (I mean, compared to the one we had yesterday.... )
This had nothing to do with the 'style' and everything to do with the use of Apple's trademark logo. It just so happened that the themes also resemble apple's theme (which is why the authors use the apple logo..)
Your headline makes one belive that Apple has forced all themes that LOOK like it's own theme to be removed from themes.org.
In reality, apple lawyers wrote a letter to themes.org, pointing out that a couple of the 'aqua' themes they were hosting happened to be using apple's trademarked logo without permission, and that this was a violation of trademark law. *IT IS A VIOLATION OF TRADEMARK LAW*. No biggie. no lawsuits, no threat of fines, no nothing.. just a polite note pointing out a trademark violation.
As long as it is up to the END USER to pick the logo he wants. If it came preconfigured to fetch apples logo, you would still be violating their trademark. See.. it doesn't matter where the image comes from, and the technical mechanism of display doesn't matter either; what matters is that the final work is a) not apples and b) uses apple's trademark.
Slashdot Mirror
You know.. Verisign did nothing wrong here.. but here's my beef with the way certification is handled these days. The public accepts what it shouldn't. Here's why.
When browser came of age, and security was of great concern, if you recall, the main hubub was about credit card information, and how SSL protected it. In other words, ask joe average internet user what certificates are for, and he'll say 'for encryption, so my credit card doens't get stolen by hackers listening in on the line'. That's what the press implied, and that's how people thought.
Now.. the REAL reason the certificate system works as it does is a bit different. It's not for the encryption, but for the authentication. A properly signed Verisign certificate, presented by CDNow.com is supposed to let you know that CDNow.com *IS* CDNow.com, and not an imposter. It's supposed to let you konw that they are a real business, and that they have proven this, with legal documents, to Verisign. This is why Verisign 'signs' the certificate.
You see, it was never supposed to be about granting encryption priveleges; only about authenticating the merchant.
So. Technically, we think it's kind of necessary to have a Verisign for commercial transactions.. but they rose to power based on the fact that people thought it was necessary JUST FOR ENCRYPTION (and hey.. if you didnt' have a verisign signed cert, browsers would bitch... so in the publics eye, you were not trustworthy if you didn't have their signature).
Fine. For financial transactions, fine. My security and piece of mind comes from knowing that Verisign says this company is real, and I have someone to chase down when they overcharge my card.
Now.. software... Verisign signing software? Why? To prove it came safely from the download site to my HD? WHy do I need a verisign to do that?
IN E-commerce, verisign fills a need.
With downloadable software... like Active-X, where the security model kind of SUCKS, it would make much more sense if that signature implied omsething, like the software provider has guaranteed that this software follows certain guidelines... etc.....
You may be surprised at how cheap small color LCD screens are.
LCD's get exponentially harder to build as the size goes up...
this means tiny ones are dirt cheap, and big ones are really expensive.
a 1 inch color LCD screen is a only a few dollars.
Okay. I know that shaped CDs are not new.. and we hard about these CDs from linuxcare at te last show... but where can we get them?
No. They do not work in slot load drives.
They will work in any drive that can take a standard 3 inch cd.
Yes.
As long as they are balanced.
Remember, CD's can be of arbitrary size, and read from the inside out. These usually store about 50MB of data on them.
http://www.sculptedcd.com
I don't look at it that way.
It souds to me like he doesn't dwell on it! It was one of many projects he's worked on, and not somethign that defines his existence.
When asked if he could go back and change anything, his answer starts with 'But you can't go back...'.. which is true.
I see. A tradition of obscure administration practices.
You know what? That's bull.
Regardless of pretty context-sensitive menus, etc.... there is *NO WAY* you can have the kind of flexibility you get from these 'obscure' practices that you can get from a pretty interface.
NO INTERFACE will make up for lack of knowledge. The current way most unix applications are administered forces one to learn a great deal about each application. This is GOOD.
It's when some retard builds an 'admin tool' that lets someone set up a web server with a bunch of other stuff, and not know a damn thign about the computer or the OS that Linux will become like Windows.
Okay Mr. Smart guy.
Bluetooth has nothing to do with wireless LAN stuff. NOTHING.
It's not in competition with 802.11, and it's certainly not 'already out the door'. It's JUST barely coming out.
And it has TONS of support.
The whole point is that bluetooth is a single $5 chip, that creates a 'personal area network' for about 10 meters around a device. Think palmpilot. Think printer. Think sharing data across the boardroom table WITHOUT IRDA.
Thinkg that this chip has the radio gear INSIDE it, and it's so cheap that *anything* can be enabled wirelessly.
It's not supposed to be fast. Or long range.
802.11 has not 'moved' to 11 Mbps. 802.11 covers MANY modulation schemes on different frequencies, and each has it's own speed..
Don't assert facts about things you are clueless about.
This is not quite true.
Yes, at a higher frequency, you can transmit more data.. but this also depends on the exact modulation scheme used, and the size of the band used, and the power levels involved. You can also increase the amount of data you can send by increasing power.
BlueTooth is SLOW. It's not supposed to be fast. It's not supposed to replace 802.11 wireless ethernet. It's for linking devices together.
Also, 900mhz cuts through walls like butter (that's why Cellular uses it....). 2.4Ghz sure doesn't.
Your cellphone has a range of quite a distance, through walls and everything, and operates at a much higher power.
Bluetooth has a range of 10 meters, IIRC.
Bluetooth is not for roaming around the city, and not even for wireless lan at home.
It's so your laptop can communicate with the printer across the room from you, or so your palmtop can share data with the laptop of the guy sitting on the other end of the boardroom.
It's a replacement for IRDA, in simple terms.
They did. It's called Python.
Does it work under Linux?
Does it cost a fortune like everythign else Rational makes?
Do you work for Rational?
And isn't how it always is these days? The media senesationalizes whatever they feel like.... without regard to what people actually think.
The really nice thing about this is not whether os x is better than our other unix variants, blah blah blah... but whether existing mac users like it.
If the existing mac user base switches to OS/X.... they will probably discover the wonders of unix sitting underneath it.
Operating systems are converging..
Uhh.. that's because Bluetooth has nothing to do with replacing wired networks.
It's to link portable devices together, like what IRDA tries to do today (only a lot cooler)
They are unrelated.
802.11 is the wireless extension for ethernet (802.* is iEEE ethernet)
No, in 802.11, you don't need an access point. The access point is usually just a bridge, so you can hook into your lan (you could do this with a linux box, a wavelan card, and an ethernet card).
Though, some access poitns support multiple cards, and just do the job well.
Bluetooth is to replace IRDA, and is not meant to replace wireless networking at all.
Can you present some facts to back that bold statement up?
Yeah. Your wristwatch and PDA don't have enough juice to handle 802.11. Bluetooth is short range and more complicated.. meant for things like ptp links between printers/palmtops/radios/cellphones.
Basically, everythign IRDA was going to revolutionize but sucked at.
It's not meant to replace wireless lan/802.11
Think of bluetooth as somethign to replace IRDA. That would be oversimplifying, but you get the idea. We don't need every device to behave like it's on ethernet.. we just need devices to be ableto speak to each other when they are in proximity. ie: palmtop to printer (wihtout perhaps having to point it at the printer).
To my understanding, bluetooth is not meant to solvethe wireless lan/wan problems that 802.11 is. Bluetooth is intended more to solve the last-yard problem. Something to universally take the place of IRDA devices as well as maybe patch cables for ethernet. It's meant so nearby devices can talk to each other easily, without the headaches of IRDA... it's not meant as a networking solution.
We must remember that when it comes to Law, it is not a game of pure logic. Though what you say makes sense from a technical/logic point of view, the judge will say one thing: "I stated in a court order that linking to this material was forbidden, and regardless of what convoluted methods you used, you still violated that order."
Those are DEVELOPMENT RELEASES for DEVELOPERS.
That means PEOPLE WHO AREN'T AFRAID TO FIX BUGS.
If there is a fsck up in the build scripts.. FIX IT!
EVERYBODY KNOWS that 2.3 kernels are DEVELOPMENTAL, UNSABLE, UNRELIABLE kernels.
Not like we would have already seen it on Freshmeat...
And since when is another development kernel release NEWS FOR NERDS/STUFF THAT MATTERS?
Anyone who gives a hoot about new linux kernels will be checking kernel.org for their new kernels..
Give me a break.
Unless I'm missing something.. is there something great about this new kernel? Tons of new long-awaited features? (I mean, compared to the one we had yesterday.... )
No.. I didn't think so.
Sheesh.
This had nothing to do with the 'style' and everything to do with the use of Apple's trademark logo.
It just so happened that the themes also resemble apple's theme (which is why the authors use the apple logo..)
Please! I'm *BEGGING* YOU! Quit doing thises sleazoid headlines! Rob! Hemos! STOP IT!!
DON'T BE IDIOTS!
Your headline makes one belive that Apple has forced all themes that LOOK like it's own theme to be removed from themes.org.
In reality, apple lawyers wrote a letter to themes.org, pointing out that a couple of the 'aqua' themes they were hosting happened to be using apple's trademarked logo without permission, and that this was a violation of trademark law. *IT IS A VIOLATION OF TRADEMARK LAW*. No biggie. no lawsuits, no threat of fines, no nothing.. just a polite note pointing out a trademark violation.
As long as it is up to the END USER to pick the logo he wants. If it came preconfigured to fetch apples logo, you would still be violating their trademark.
See.. it doesn't matter where the image comes from, and the technical mechanism of display doesn't matter either; what matters is that the final work is a) not apples and b) uses apple's trademark.