Adams' gift (or one of them) was the unexpected. I think anyone trying to write "as" Adams will inevitably fail because no matter how good a writer they are in their own right if they try write as they 'expect' Adams to write then it will be expected by the reader too.
If case any one reading this likes HHGTG and hasn't read Adam's Dirk Gently novels I can only recommend to get them and read them.
I don't have a TV at home, so the TV spectrum is useless. I don't listen to radio in the car, so radio spectrum is useless.
Not to your neighbours, or people in cars around you. I think you'd be hard pressed to show that broadcasting isn't a reasonably efficient use of the spectra in terms of the amount of content delivered to individuals.
But what would happen if the FCC went away, and all of a sudden the power players who control TV, radio and other spectra would need to compete with the YouTube amateurs of the world? The powerful would fall.
That and everyday people would be left without as all existing equipment would be useless. Given the angst over the digital switch over I'd expect there'd be a lot of rather unhappy people were that to happen.
But, if it were to happen slowly, doesn't that imply that at some point it has a minimal orbital speed (if that's the correct term), and would fall right in?
In a 2 dimensional universe, yes.
In this one? No.
It implies that the plane of the orbit rotates through 180 degrees much like (here it comes everyone) a car tyre when you do a U-turn. It keeps rotating but eventually ends up going the other way.
If you don't mind the possibility that the world may get your data, then by all means feel free to use Google, or any other SaaS type offering.
I don't understand what "possibility" has to do with it. Your data could "possibly" be exposed if you have your own infrastructure.
A more relevant question is probability. Is there additional exposure through using Google? Are Google internal security practices likely to be better than yours?
If you are a small shop outsourcing your IT services anyway then why is Google worse than some other party?
That's a better question.
Their policy suggests not.
Perhaps a Google engineer somewhere can "read your stuff" but only in the same sense that you could as the person administering your clients mail. Is that a worry? I'd expect Google have a lot more to lose if such a privacy breach happened than you, their whole apps hosting business would evaporate.
That said, if there are specific legal requirements for your industry you'd need to evaluate on those specific requirements not on what a random guy on Slashdot thinks.
In terms of automobiles, that means you should replace the most fuel-guzzling part of the fleet before you start thinking about making the thrifty cars thriftier.In terms of automobiles, that means you should replace the most fuel-guzzling part of the fleet before you start thinking about making the thrifty cars thriftier.
I think you are overlooking the number of cars sold. If the most polluting cars (on an individual basis) only make a relatively small percentage of your total car sales then it may indeed make sense to improve the performance of your more thrifty cars. I don't know what Nissan's market is like, but I'd have to guess that in Japan and Europe there are vastly more small to medium cars than larger ones.
I'm sorry but the range and charging time aren't even close to being acceptable to the vast majority of users
An assessment based on?
How many people can afford two cars: one for the city and one for the highway?
If you aren't making frequent long distance trips why would you buy a second car? You'd hire a car (or fly) on the odd occasion you wanted to make a longer trip.
They wouldn't even be useful as pizza delivery cars for heaven's sake with that kind of charging time!
How about the vast number of people who spend 8+ hours at work each day, 8+ hours at home and travel less that 50 miles each way in between?
In the same sense that sending letters is more practical than sending electronic mail?.
Might be true at a given point in time. Doesn't mean it always will be.
Might be a problem in the US and Europe.
In Japan they might do something absurd like create the required infrastructure rather than throwing their hands in the air and exclaiming that it's all too hard.
There's something to be said for respecting the wishes of the people licensing you the software even if they've not been able to craft a perfect, no-loopholes legal document to describe them.
If those wishes are made clearly in advance then I agree. If they pipe up after you've done invested time and money in good faith then tough luck I say. That's the same as trying to take back the freedom they've given you through the licence.
They are going to outsource their software to Indian developers, the quality might slip but it's often much cheaper to have developers operate from a wiimote site.
I wasn't really making a joke. There are plenty of other entities (including but not limited to various military and government institutions around the world) with similar numbers and I doubt you'd consider it sensible to have them as a root CA in the average person's browser.
Interesting, I had not noticed that before.
I think in that situation the fact you're also using a client key prevents a man in the middle attack from being possible. Ie you might connect to a bad host but it can't be a man in the middle by on-connecting you to the real host based on the credentials you've sent them.
For a website that typically isn't true, client keys aren't used much at all and authentication of the user to the server happens after the SSL connection is complete.
This is a headache for SiteTruth [sitetruth.com], which uses certificates as a indication of web site validity and a source of business names and addresses. Only certs that are valid, using the Firefox cert file as authority, are accepted. There are more rejects than there should be.
Is there some reason people should be trusting certs issued by the US military?
This kind of make sense I guess, at least it is the default behavior for Open-SSH, it will accept any host public key when connecting to a host for the first time
Openssh doesn't just blindly accept any host key. It prompts you to confirm it with the sort of message that people are apparently decrying in Firefox. If it seems less scary it's merely because the sort of people who use SSH tend to understand it.
99% of people aren't capable of making an informed decision about a certificates validity so CA signing is a reasonable way of getting security to those people.
If you want to use a self signed certificate then you better know that your audience is capable of understanding them. If they are then they won't have any problem with the Firefox dialogues. If they aren't capable then you are doing them a disservice by offering something that will confuse them and training them to click through something they don't understand.
I don't know how many stupid asinine ideas like this I'll have to see before I quit this career, but I suspect the number will be higher than I care to contemplate.
I bet it will be fewer than the number of times I hear people decrying "security through obscurity" for no real reason.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mean you aren't succeeding.
Do you really think that women are the only people kept up at night by babies?
Kangaroo pouches are only so big.
Adams' gift (or one of them) was the unexpected. I think anyone trying to write "as" Adams will inevitably fail because no matter how good a writer they are in their own right if they try write as they 'expect' Adams to write then it will be expected by the reader too.
If case any one reading this likes HHGTG and hasn't read Adam's Dirk Gently novels I can only recommend to get them and read them.
So we've in the right place then?
Stubby human fingers.
Not to your neighbours, or people in cars around you. I think you'd be hard pressed to show that broadcasting isn't a reasonably efficient use of the spectra in terms of the amount of content delivered to individuals.
That and everyday people would be left without as all existing equipment would be useless. Given the angst over the digital switch over I'd expect there'd be a lot of rather unhappy people were that to happen.
Sure, he could taken the time to think about it carefully but getting that post out there in public is soooooo gratifying.
In a 2 dimensional universe, yes. In this one? No. It implies that the plane of the orbit rotates through 180 degrees much like (here it comes everyone) a car tyre when you do a U-turn. It keeps rotating but eventually ends up going the other way.
It was "released" in their alpha stream right? I don't think it's unreasonable for it not to be fully documented, announced or in it's final form.
I don't understand what "possibility" has to do with it. Your data could "possibly" be exposed if you have your own infrastructure.
A more relevant question is probability. Is there additional exposure through using Google? Are Google internal security practices likely to be better than yours? If you are a small shop outsourcing your IT services anyway then why is Google worse than some other party?
That's a better question.
Their policy suggests not.
Perhaps a Google engineer somewhere can "read your stuff" but only in the same sense that you could as the person administering your clients mail. Is that a worry? I'd expect Google have a lot more to lose if such a privacy breach happened than you, their whole apps hosting business would evaporate.
That said, if there are specific legal requirements for your industry you'd need to evaluate on those specific requirements not on what a random guy on Slashdot thinks.
I think you are overlooking the number of cars sold. If the most polluting cars (on an individual basis) only make a relatively small percentage of your total car sales then it may indeed make sense to improve the performance of your more thrifty cars. I don't know what Nissan's market is like, but I'd have to guess that in Japan and Europe there are vastly more small to medium cars than larger ones.
An assessment based on?
If you aren't making frequent long distance trips why would you buy a second car? You'd hire a car (or fly) on the odd occasion you wanted to make a longer trip.
How about the vast number of people who spend 8+ hours at work each day, 8+ hours at home and travel less that 50 miles each way in between?
In the same sense that sending letters is more practical than sending electronic mail?. Might be true at a given point in time. Doesn't mean it always will be.
Might be a problem in the US and Europe. In Japan they might do something absurd like create the required infrastructure rather than throwing their hands in the air and exclaiming that it's all too hard.
Just because it isn't appropriate for your use case doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who it is appropriate for.
If those wishes are made clearly in advance then I agree. If they pipe up after you've done invested time and money in good faith then tough luck I say. That's the same as trying to take back the freedom they've given you through the licence.
They are going to outsource their software to Indian developers, the quality might slip but it's often much cheaper to have developers operate from a wiimote site.
I wasn't really making a joke. There are plenty of other entities (including but not limited to various military and government institutions around the world) with similar numbers and I doubt you'd consider it sensible to have them as a root CA in the average person's browser.
Interesting, I had not noticed that before.
I think in that situation the fact you're also using a client key prevents a man in the middle attack from being possible. Ie you might connect to a bad host but it can't be a man in the middle by on-connecting you to the real host based on the credentials you've sent them.
For a website that typically isn't true, client keys aren't used much at all and authentication of the user to the server happens after the SSL connection is complete.
Is there some reason people should be trusting certs issued by the US military?
Openssh doesn't just blindly accept any host key. It prompts you to confirm it with the sort of message that people are apparently decrying in Firefox. If it seems less scary it's merely because the sort of people who use SSH tend to understand it.
99% of people aren't capable of making an informed decision about a certificates validity so CA signing is a reasonable way of getting security to those people.
If you want to use a self signed certificate then you better know that your audience is capable of understanding them. If they are then they won't have any problem with the Firefox dialogues. If they aren't capable then you are doing them a disservice by offering something that will confuse them and training them to click through something they don't understand.
Do you seriously hold that to be true? I'd expect 0% would be a far closer approximation.
I bet it will be fewer than the number of times I hear people decrying "security through obscurity" for no real reason.
of doubling production costs and increasing complexity.