Once your ISP starts doing this, you can either participate, pay overages, move to an area served by a different ISP (and make plans to move again once the ISP serving that area changes its policy as well), or disconnect from the Internet. You have already ruled out participating; which of the remaining three is most attractive to you?
None of the above. I couldn't tell you exactly which, but there's got to be at least half a dozen laws and regulations that would prohibit ISPs from doing that, if not German then at least EU-wide, or so I'd hope. That said, I don't like the web to begin with, so as far as I'm concerned it can DIAF. (No, the irony of me saying that here is not lost on me. I'm not on/. because I like the web, I'm on the web because I like^Whave some weird nostalgia for/. and come to think of it, it would work much better over (correctly chained) email.)
[Puts writing a/. <-> email gateway on his todo list]
[Billing for uncacheable use of a connection] is unrelated to the privacy issue, though.
It's related if the majority of home Internet subscribers prove themselves willing to give up their privacy for a discount on Internet access. It's like ISPs that zero-rate Facebook under the "Free Basics" program: users expose everything to Facebook because their ISP has made it cheaper than using other sites that respect the user's privacy.
HTTPS won't save you there because the browser sends the hostname in cleartext in the Server Name Indication field of the ClientHello packet.
It already sends the hostname in cleartext in the CONNECT request which comes before ClientHello. I'm not sure why you're pointing this out, you quoted me saying that... Hostname is strictly better than full URL, since the latter contains the former.
Watch ISPs offer subscribers a discount on their monthly data plans for configuring their devices to run HTTPS traffic through the ISP's MITM proxy.
Yes, I'll watch. As opposed to participate.
Until you start getting billed for each CONNECT that shows up in the access log because the requested resource can't be served from a Squid or Polipo cache upstream of you.
Ok. That is unrelated to the privacy issue, though.
Asking a real question- why should we encrypt non-sensitive data?
Because even though the data is non-sensitive, people might still prefer a little privacy. You'll understand when you're behind a proxy that has multiple people constantly tail -F'ing the access log.
Some stuff is totally mundane and I wouldn't want people to know I'm accessing it regardless even though they would not care about it.
Then there's the problem of, say, clicking on a google search result that was obtained via https, when the actual result isn't. Congratulation, your google search just leaked as part of the Referrer.
Then there's the issue of WHAT exactly is going on on a particular site. I'd take a 'CONNECT slashdot.org:443' in the access log over GET and especially POST showing up there, telling the reading vs posting rate. Not that I'd post must on/. at work, but as a matter of principle.
tl;dr: If your site doesn't speak https, I'll probably stay away from it. Yes, you might not care, but you asked for reasons and here are a few.
Wayland shouldn't know shit about 'empty areas' and only have a very vague notion of a 'click'. Are things worse than I thought? How/why would wayland get a say window movement policy? Inquiring minds want to know...
Then, you do realize that Outlook is an MUA, right? And that it *choses* to ask Windows.
I don't see how your reply does anything than underlining my point, that it's completely up to the MUA.
And it has still nothing to do with Linux, and that's not only because it's only a kernel, but simply because there is no universally agreed upon standard on how to ask the OS with which "application" to open a file "on Linux" in the first place. (Shebang is different.)
I ditched Windows long ago for Linux and never looked back -- mostly because I ditched Linux for NetBSD shortly thereafter (and still never looked back).
It's a no-brainer if you think about it. If enough people do have a RDS-enabled stereo with an actual antenna hooked up to it, most of them will get the warning. That means that a good portion of the cars in front of you will slow down/form a passageway/drive onto the shoulder/whatever. I'd say seeing that happen in front of you *might* give a subtle hint that something's up which in turn *might* be sufficient motivation to briefly shift your attention from the smartphone to the rear mirror to notice an oncoming emergency vehicle at which point you can consider the out-of-band RDS warning delivered.:)
Those people driving with headphones? They don't have an aux-in jack on their car stereo.
If you're suggesting people meeting up in VR (using their avatars or whatever), then still no. Yes, interesting, but no, not the real thing. There's something to human-human interaction that you simply cannot reproduce with VR that's less advanced as what they have in the Matrix.
Think of a party. (I know, we're on slashdot, so just pretend you have ever been to one). Sure I could (if the technology was there) simply stay at home, meet up with my VR buddies on a VR dancefloor, tune the VR to try and reproduce the effects of whatever drugs seem appropriate and Have A Good Night. Will it be able to produce the same hot, sweaty atmosphere, will it properly recreate the feeling (not to mention the sound) of a row of 18" subwoofers? Will I be able to hit on that cute girl over there?
Yes, all three(TM) BSDs have nvi in base, and call it vi, so you're right that it's technically not historical vi.
However, the very same man page you referred says nvi is "intended as bug-for-bug compatible replacement[] for the original Fourth Berkeley Software Distribution (4BSD) [...] vi program[]". So in my opinion it's fair enough to call it vi.
Slashdot Mirror
Once your ISP starts doing this, you can either participate, pay overages, move to an area served by a different ISP (and make plans to move again once the ISP serving that area changes its policy as well), or disconnect from the Internet. You have already ruled out participating; which of the remaining three is most attractive to you?
None of the above. I couldn't tell you exactly which, but there's got to be at least half a dozen laws and regulations that would prohibit ISPs from doing that, if not German then at least EU-wide, or so I'd hope. That said, I don't like the web to begin with, so as far as I'm concerned it can DIAF. (No, the irony of me saying that here is not lost on me. I'm not on /. because I like the web, I'm on the web because I like^Whave some weird nostalgia for /. and come to think of it, it would work much better over (correctly chained) email.)
[Puts writing a /. <-> email gateway on his todo list]
[Billing for uncacheable use of a connection] is unrelated to the privacy issue, though.
It's related if the majority of home Internet subscribers prove themselves willing to give up their privacy for a discount on Internet access. It's like ISPs that zero-rate Facebook under the "Free Basics" program: users expose everything to Facebook because their ISP has made it cheaper than using other sites that respect the user's privacy.
Fair point.
HTTPS won't save you there because the browser sends the hostname in cleartext in the Server Name Indication field of the ClientHello packet.
It already sends the hostname in cleartext in the CONNECT request which comes before ClientHello. I'm not sure why you're pointing this out, you quoted me saying that... Hostname is strictly better than full URL, since the latter contains the former.
Watch ISPs offer subscribers a discount on their monthly data plans for configuring their devices to run HTTPS traffic through the ISP's MITM proxy.
Yes, I'll watch. As opposed to participate.
Until you start getting billed for each CONNECT that shows up in the access log because the requested resource can't be served from a Squid or Polipo cache upstream of you.
Ok. That is unrelated to the privacy issue, though.
Asking a real question- why should we encrypt non-sensitive data?
Because even though the data is non-sensitive, people might still prefer a little privacy. You'll understand when you're behind a proxy that has multiple people constantly tail -F'ing the access log.
Some stuff is totally mundane and I wouldn't want people to know I'm accessing it regardless even though they would not care about it.
Then there's the problem of, say, clicking on a google search result that was obtained via https, when the actual result isn't. Congratulation, your google search just leaked as part of the Referrer.
Then there's the issue of WHAT exactly is going on on a particular site. I'd take a 'CONNECT slashdot.org:443' in the access log over GET and especially POST showing up there, telling the reading vs posting rate. Not that I'd post must on /. at work, but as a matter of principle.
tl;dr: If your site doesn't speak https, I'll probably stay away from it. Yes, you might not care, but you asked for reasons and here are a few.
Makes me wonder how a cell works.
No? ;)
Wayland shouldn't know shit about 'empty areas' and only have a very vague notion of a 'click'. Are things worse than I thought? How/why would wayland get a say window movement policy? Inquiring minds want to know...
A hundred times this.
electric sockets behind the sink
Amazing idea.
..and hacked again five minutes later.
It's stupid to upgrade when there's no reason to upgrade.
Doing that would be a sign of a shitty sysadmin, dear PFY.
<)))><
It's not up to the MUA, Outlook asks Windows
First, you were talking about what "Linux" does
Then, you do realize that Outlook is an MUA, right? And that it *choses* to ask Windows.
I don't see how your reply does anything than underlining my point, that it's completely up to the MUA.
And it has still nothing to do with Linux, and that's not only because it's only a kernel, but simply because there is no universally agreed upon standard on how to ask the OS with which "application" to open a file "on Linux" in the first place. (Shebang is different.)
I'm sure if you email yourself a bash script on your Linux machine, it'll open in a text editor or at least confirm that you want to run it.
This totally isn't up to the MUA, yeah. Get a clue and realize this has nothing to do with Linux.
she bang you?
with a strap-on?
I ditched Windows long ago for Linux and never looked back -- mostly because I ditched Linux for NetBSD shortly thereafter (and still never looked back).
Duly notéd.
Maybé you'ré just incompétént?
So a grand total of about 74 minutes' work was lost.
Times the number of kids working at that time.
It's a no-brainer if you think about it. If enough people do have a RDS-enabled stereo with an actual antenna hooked up to it, most of them will get the warning. That means that a good portion of the cars in front of you will slow down/form a passageway/drive onto the shoulder/whatever. I'd say seeing that happen in front of you *might* give a subtle hint that something's up which in turn *might* be sufficient motivation to briefly shift your attention from the smartphone to the rear mirror to notice an oncoming emergency vehicle at which point you can consider the out-of-band RDS warning delivered. :)
Those people driving with headphones? They don't have an aux-in jack on their car stereo.
Yes, you're a very special snowflake. We get it.
If you're suggesting people meeting up in VR (using their avatars or whatever), then still no. Yes, interesting, but no, not the real thing. There's something to human-human interaction that you simply cannot reproduce with VR that's less advanced as what they have in the Matrix.
Think of a party. (I know, we're on slashdot, so just pretend you have ever been to one). Sure I could (if the technology was there) simply stay at home, meet up with my VR buddies on a VR dancefloor, tune the VR to try and reproduce the effects of whatever drugs seem appropriate and Have A Good Night. Will it be able to produce the same hot, sweaty atmosphere, will it properly recreate the feeling (not to mention the sound) of a row of 18" subwoofers? Will I be able to hit on that cute girl over there?
Talk about myopic(sic).
If done right, you won't even miss the energy of the crowd because you will be as good as there with them....
Sure, if you're fine with a crowd that consists of NPCs.
Will anyone still want to physically go to these events?
Yes. It might be difficult to understand, but some people might go to these events mostly because of other people going to these events.
Yes, all three(TM) BSDs have nvi in base, and call it vi, so you're right that it's technically not historical vi.
However, the very same man page you referred says nvi is "intended as bug-for-bug compatible replacement[] for the original Fourth Berkeley Software Distribution (4BSD) [...] vi program[]". So in my opinion it's fair enough to call it vi.
If only it had anything to do with Break...
The work^H^H^H^Hvirtual machine needs to be a windows because we have some programs that don't run under anything else.
FTFY