Because the new/. owners don't understand that those tags were supposed to be funny/witty. It seems entirely lost on them, and they'll just use something that sounds more or less appropriate.
I think you're talking about one particular application/protocol, while i'm talking about a class of devices.
There's nothing stopping you from using RFID in more elaborate ways. Once you have something that knows sort of a private key, but without the ability to reveal the actual key, you're on smartcard-level security. And that was my whole point when saying
RFID chips can be made as impossible to clone as smart cards.
RFID chips can be made as impossible to clone as smart cards. No, gaining access to the smart card contact pads won't help you in any way, neither will MITMing it.
So what when there's 10bn humans on earth? What when there's 20? 50? Not that's not an 'if', but a 'when'. At some point, adding another life will actually harm other lives. Where do you draw the line?
Sure you can. You can setup trust systems like Bitcoin does with its blockchains (and there's already lots of research being started into how the blockchain concept can be used to decentralize other things while retaining a strong level trust.)
True -- bitcoin managed to pull that off. But at the expense of a crapton of energy. I don't think that concept would be feasible for use with email, unless there's some strong incentive to participate in email-block-mining (which you essentially pay for via your utility bill).
Email clients automatically generating and including PGP/GPG signatures would go a long way as well.
I don't see how that helps with unsolicited mail at all.
I think the problem is that you can't have both, decentral and no unsolicited mail, because if you want the latter, there's got to be some authority that gets to decide who's legitimate and who isn't.
I consider spam a necessary price to pay for a truly open and decentral communication system.
who hasn't had experience with Windows in over a decade.
That's surprisingly spot-on, but overall missing the point, because the same goes for the CLI and whatever tools are provided. protip: you don't have to provide a tool to turn off $feature.
I'll never get some of you guys. When an OS doesn't force the user to update, its a security risk.
If by 'updates' you mean fixing security issues, then yes.
When an OS does force the user to update, its an affront to freedom and choice.
If by 'updates' you mean fixing security issues, then no.
It is my understanding that the sort of 'updates' we're talking about here, however, is more than 'fixing security issues'. If I were using Windows, I'd be fine with forced security updates, but not with forced addition of random crap and telemetry.
either don't use Windows
I'm running pretty much only NetBSD, with the occasional FreeBSD and Linux machines here and there. Doesn't change that i can be curious about the latest drama of the Windows world.
or become enough of a power user to stop the OS from doing it.
Seriously, who are you kidding? You can't just "become enough of a power user" to stop a blackbox OS from doing that. All you *can* do is a depth-first traversal of the entire GUI, unchecking every checkbox that sounds related. In no way does that mean that you can be sure everything is actually turned off, becuase, you know, software developers don't HAVE to add a checkbox to a GUI to control $feature.
The average Windows user will have no idea how to disable updates. What's the point in taking away that possibility from above (should I say "below", given that they know better yet bend over for the clusterfuck windows is?) average windows users?
Slashdot Mirror
your knot funny.
Because the new /. owners don't understand that those tags were supposed to be funny/witty. It seems entirely lost on them, and they'll just use something that sounds more or less appropriate.
because you had coded in Assembler.
I really miss those days. Nowadays, everybody just codes in Compiler. meh.
Oh, I didn't see the part where you said oxide. My bad.
The RFID protocol
I think you're talking about one particular application/protocol, while i'm talking about a class of devices.
There's nothing stopping you from using RFID in more elaborate ways. Once you have something that knows sort of a private key, but without the ability to reveal the actual key, you're on smartcard-level security. And that was my whole point when saying
RFID chips can be made as impossible to clone as smart cards.
RFID chips can be made as impossible to clone as smart cards.
No, gaining access to the smart card contact pads won't help you in any way, neither will MITMing it.
IOW you're full of shit.
I realize you're trying to be funny, but they did say 'degrees', which rules out Kelvin.
And before you wonder, yes, I'm a blast at parties.
pretty sure it's just C
The galaxy is *not* 11Gly away.
The question was about the when, not the where.
Hey Mycroft! So what you're trying to tell me us is that this light, that traveled 11 billion light years, didn't take 11 billion years to travel?
May I by any chance subscribe to your newsletter?
Didn't think so.
Sincerely, Sherlock.
Your point being?
if they told us when the event happened. 11 billion light years away didn't happen last nite.
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.
I wonder how long it takes light to travel 11 billion light years. Maybe if someone could figure that out, we could tell when the event happened.
You're not too good with reading comprehension, huh? That isn't a forecast, it's a question about where to draw the line.
s/Not/Note/
So what when there's 10bn humans on earth? What when there's 20? 50? Not that's not an 'if', but a 'when'.
At some point, adding another life will actually harm other lives. Where do you draw the line?
Sure you can. You can setup trust systems like Bitcoin does with its blockchains (and there's already lots of research being started into how the blockchain concept can be used to decentralize other things while retaining a strong level trust.)
True -- bitcoin managed to pull that off. But at the expense of a crapton of energy. I don't think that concept would be feasible for use with email, unless there's some strong incentive to participate in email-block-mining (which you essentially pay for via your utility bill).
Email clients automatically generating and including PGP/GPG signatures would go a long way as well.
I don't see how that helps with unsolicited mail at all.
I think the problem is that you can't have both, decentral and no unsolicited mail, because if you want the latter, there's got to be some authority that gets to decide who's legitimate and who isn't.
I consider spam a necessary price to pay for a truly open and decentral communication system.
deee de de deee de de deee de de deee de de deeeeee de deee deee deee deee deee
--- ignore below ---
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
who hasn't had experience with Windows in over a decade.
That's surprisingly spot-on, but overall missing the point, because the same goes for the CLI and whatever tools are provided. protip: you don't have to provide a tool to turn off $feature.
I'll never get some of you guys. When an OS doesn't force the user to update, its a security risk.
If by 'updates' you mean fixing security issues, then yes.
When an OS does force the user to update, its an affront to freedom and choice.
If by 'updates' you mean fixing security issues, then no.
It is my understanding that the sort of 'updates' we're talking about here, however, is more than 'fixing security issues'. If I were using Windows, I'd be fine with forced security updates, but not with forced addition of random crap and telemetry.
either don't use Windows
I'm running pretty much only NetBSD, with the occasional FreeBSD and Linux machines here and there. Doesn't change that i can be curious about the latest drama of the Windows world.
or become enough of a power user to stop the OS from doing it.
Seriously, who are you kidding? You can't just "become enough of a power user" to stop a blackbox OS from doing that.
All you *can* do is a depth-first traversal of the entire GUI, unchecking every checkbox that sounds related. In no way does that mean that you can be sure everything is actually turned off, becuase, you know, software developers don't HAVE to add a checkbox to a GUI to control $feature.
The average Windows user will have no idea how to disable updates. What's the point in taking away that possibility from above (should I say "below", given that they know better yet bend over for the clusterfuck windows is?) average windows users?
What bizarre reason would that be?
I see there's now a story below the story, on the story page as opposed to the front page. And it's all brown.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a batch of "Epygi Shares Advice on Hosted vs On-Premise PBX Options" to purchase.
In fact, some commenters are fanboys/tolls or shills i don't know.
"I'll have sex later."