and DMCA takedown notices are only effective against entities that have a US presence. Just like you can't sue me for violating a US software patent if I have no business there.
Reversing a domain name makes no sense. The most significant part of a domain name is the name itself, not the TLD or what registrar happens to have been used.
I've always thought the 192.168.0.0/16 and 172.16.0.0/12 blocks were a bad idea. They account for a little over 6% of the entire private address space. I don't see why it can't just be 10.0.0.0/8 for private.
You'll find important features like configuring the lock-screen not under right-click display like you would expect, but buried deep inside the user-accounts system
Yes, you'll find a security setting inside the user-accounts system. Sure, it's semi-related to a password protected screen saver. It has nothing to do with a screen saver though, or display resolution, orientation, multiple screens, display adapters, or anything else to do with the display settings.
I agree with what you're saying though, Windows is like every other large piece of software. It's been changed a lot over time. It's full of new things that don't quite match up with the old things.
.... your other option is to install your own CA on the LAN PC's so you can issue your own trusted certificates for.local domains. Then you've got no problem with HTTPS using mDNS
Public CA's don't issue certificates for local domains for good reason.
You know your comment is moot if you quote the entire sentence, right?
why are you doing web development without HTTPS unless you're planning on never using it?
If you're using multicast dns, why are you using.dev instead of.local, as is part of the mDNS RFC? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
If you're not using the Google sponsored.dev gTLD, this doesn't impact you at all. They bought the rights to control who's allowed a.dev domain. Just like you need to abide by certain rules if you want to use.aero or lawyer, etc. Perhaps a condition of using.dev is to only host HTTPS web servers? I haven't looked in to it.
Also, why are you doing web development without HTTPS unless you're planning on never using it? It's not like certificates cost anything. There's also nothing stopping you loading your own CA cert and signing your own certificates too. Browsers behave differently based on the protocol. Building against one set of rules and deploying against another is just asking for problems.
I have many: My phone My watch My headphones My laptop My PC My 2 TV's My speaker dock My car stereo
My wife has many: Her phone Her headphones Her iPod Her laptop Her tablet Her car stereo
My son has a laptop with bluetooth
That's 16 devices in my house of 4 off the top of my head Doesn't include all the old phones not actively used. I've also got a bunch of other devices with bluetooth hardware but no software stack: Raspberry Pi 3, Asus Tinkerboard, Pine64... quite a few of those dev boards have Bluetooth.
Looks like the vulnerabilities that impact Android are in the BlueZ bluetooth stack. Nothing to do with the MAC address of your Bluetooth/Wifi, of if Bluetooth and WiFi are contained in the same piece of hardware (I doubt any phone has a separate Bluetooth chip anyway, it would require a separate bluetooth antenna, cost more and take up more space)
This is done on basically every piece of test equipment with optional features. What's the difference between a Rigol 1054Z 50MHz DSO and the 1104Z 100MHz model?
One costs $399 and the other costs $619. The physical hardware that provides the bandwidth is identical. There is switch in the front-end to lower the bandwidth controlled by software. Doing this means the hardware costs more, but they can sell it at difference price points to get a larger market. They offer software upgrades to increase the memory depth as well.
No to mention extra upgrades to unlock protocol decoding.
Yes, thank goodness the CPU I'm using right now is not the same die as a higher performance part, but with some cores and cache disabled. Not because of yield, but because they need to produce a certain number of each model.
Slashdot Mirror
7071 alloy doesn't exist
I think you mean 6061
What is 7071?
Is it anything like 6061?
Consuming a stimulant causes stimulant effects.
There are already restrictions on campaign advertising. No one claims they violate the first amendment
and DMCA takedown notices are only effective against entities that have a US presence. Just like you can't sue me for violating a US software patent if I have no business there.
There is no private class D address space.
Reversing a domain name makes no sense. The most significant part of a domain name is the name itself, not the TLD or what registrar happens to have been used.
Isn't that because they were trying to enforce copyright on a number? Someone that's never been done before (and probably should never be done).
Isn't that the thing you need to build if you want to build Battlecruisers?
What's it got to do with Apple and file systems?
I've always thought the 192.168.0.0/16 and 172.16.0.0/12 blocks were a bad idea.
They account for a little over 6% of the entire private address space. I don't see why it can't just be 10.0.0.0/8 for private.
heh. you picked a bad example.
You'll find important features like configuring the lock-screen not under right-click display like you would expect, but buried deep inside the user-accounts system
Yes, you'll find a security setting inside the user-accounts system.
Sure, it's semi-related to a password protected screen saver. It has nothing to do with a screen saver though, or display resolution, orientation, multiple screens, display adapters, or anything else to do with the display settings.
I agree with what you're saying though, Windows is like every other large piece of software. It's been changed a lot over time. It's full of new things that don't quite match up with the old things.
UX: User Experience
big companies love having their own CA though, it lets them decrypt and snoop on HTTPS traffic and resign it without browser security warnings
.... your other option is to install your own CA on the LAN PC's so you can issue your own trusted certificates for .local domains.
Then you've got no problem with HTTPS using mDNS
Public CA's don't issue certificates for local domains for good reason.
You know your comment is moot if you quote the entire sentence, right?
why are you doing web development without HTTPS unless you're planning on never using it?
If you're using multicast dns, why are you using .dev instead of .local, as is part of the mDNS RFC?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
If you're not using the Google sponsored .dev gTLD, this doesn't impact you at all. .dev domain. Just like you need to abide by certain rules if you want to use .aero or lawyer, etc. Perhaps a condition of using .dev is to only host HTTPS web servers? I haven't looked in to it.
They bought the rights to control who's allowed a
How about: Don't use a gTLD for your local DNS?
Also, why are you doing web development without HTTPS unless you're planning on never using it? It's not like certificates cost anything. There's also nothing stopping you loading your own CA cert and signing your own certificates too.
Browsers behave differently based on the protocol. Building against one set of rules and deploying against another is just asking for problems.
you know, apart from the hundred of thousands of lines of code Microsoft has already put in the Linux kernel.
Canadian tech company hints at Canadian Government to throw money at Canadian tech companies.
The VW trailer assist video was pretty good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Even in your analogy Apple is copying their competitors. Motorola already sold a phone called the RAZR
My Moto X supports fast charging, if connected to a charger that supports Qualcomm QC
The phone only came with a basic 5V 700mA charger, so I had to buy a QC compliant charger to use the feature.
I have many:
My phone
My watch
My headphones
My laptop
My PC
My 2 TV's
My speaker dock
My car stereo
My wife has many:
Her phone
Her headphones
Her iPod
Her laptop
Her tablet
Her car stereo
My son has a laptop with bluetooth
That's 16 devices in my house of 4 off the top of my head
Doesn't include all the old phones not actively used.
I've also got a bunch of other devices with bluetooth hardware but no software stack: Raspberry Pi 3, Asus Tinkerboard, Pine64... quite a few of those dev boards have Bluetooth.
Looks like the vulnerabilities that impact Android are in the BlueZ bluetooth stack.
Nothing to do with the MAC address of your Bluetooth/Wifi, of if Bluetooth and WiFi are contained in the same piece of hardware (I doubt any phone has a separate Bluetooth chip anyway, it would require a separate bluetooth antenna, cost more and take up more space)
Lenovo won't release a security update for the Moto X 2014
It's still on August 2016 patch level, 13 months old now...
This is done on basically every piece of test equipment with optional features.
What's the difference between a Rigol 1054Z 50MHz DSO and the 1104Z 100MHz model?
One costs $399 and the other costs $619.
The physical hardware that provides the bandwidth is identical. There is switch in the front-end to lower the bandwidth controlled by software. Doing this means the hardware costs more, but they can sell it at difference price points to get a larger market.
They offer software upgrades to increase the memory depth as well.
No to mention extra upgrades to unlock protocol decoding.
Yes, thank goodness the CPU I'm using right now is not the same die as a higher performance part, but with some cores and cache disabled. Not because of yield, but because they need to produce a certain number of each model.