For those curious what "short range" means in this case, about ten meters. So it could be used where you might otherwise use USB or perhaps HDMI. It's designed to hand off seamlessly to regular wifi, so your laptop could have a 6 Gbps connection at your desk which would switch to lower speeds as you carry it into the other room.
Ps, I noticed your sig. For ten years or so I was planning to be an attorney and I studied law, especially Constitutional law. Then I fell into a career programming and doing network security for 20 years. I bet we could have some interesting discussions. Right now I'm looking at where I want my career to be in ten years. It would be cool if I could somehow indulge my interest in law while taking advantage of my 20 years of programming and information security experience.
The Republicans could have run Mufasa and beat these Democrats who have been running things the last 8 years, despite the fact that Mufasa is a cartoon character. They did nominate a cartoon character, but somehow they ended up choosing the one who polls worse than Hillary.
Okay, you make a fair point in the first half of your post. It had been a long time since I read exactly what he said. I'm assuming that your is accurate.
Quoting you, quoting him:
--- There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him
Then you say:
> He says 48-49% of American voters are going to vote for Barrack Obama, no matter what Romney does.
Well no, according to you, he said TWICE 47%. Assuming your numbers for undecided, 5%-6%, that would mean they were neck-and-neck.
I was thinking Walmart did too, but I'm not sure. I do know that at Walmart you can shop online, then go pick it up when your order is ready, and they'll load it in your car.
> Surely a fingerprint taken for identification purposes is personal information, solely taken for that purpose. There are (at least in principle) increasing controls for the use of personal information and I can't see why a fingerprint taken for this purpose could be legitimately used elsewhere.
I think the "could be legitimately used" part depends very much on a proper warrant showing probable cause.
Suppose you leave your set of keys with a locksmith, for the purpose of getting copies made. The police, based on actual probable cause, get a warrant to search your safe deposit box for specific Top Secret documents which are probably in your box, and an accompanying order to the locksmith to hand over the key. I see no Constitutional problem there - they open the box because they have a proper, specific warrant showing probable cause. Using the key is not disallowed, there's no Constitutional protection of the key per se.
Where there would be a problem would be if they open the box without a warrant, or as in this case an overly broad warrant. If they warrant had been proper, they could execute it using a key, a pick, a fingerprint, or whatever other tool was appropriate.
Why are you trying to compare the number of homicides to suicides? Neither homicide nor suicide saves lives, dummy. Self-defense and defense of others saves lives. When you're trying to run away from the bad guy and I'm running toward you both to take him down, that's saving lives.
90% of suicides don't involve a gun, BTW. You don't need a gun to off yourself, a Chevy will do the job quite well.
We have very little information to go on. I'd like to read the actual warant and know the cirumstances, but based on the article it seems like a violation of the FOURTH amendment. The cops are supposed to have a warrant, based on probable cause, describing what particular things they are searching for and where, and why they think those things are in that place.
I can't imagine a probable cause to believe that everyone in the building has some specific evidence on their phone. Thus the search itself is unconstitutional under the fourth, with or without a fingerprint.
The fifth says you don't have to testify against yourself. It doesn't say you can't be fingerprinted. Thus I see no *fifth* amendment violation, though it seems like a rather onerous *fourth* amendment violation.
The stock Glock grip doesn't work too well in my hand either. Of course I know I can get all kinds of different backstraps, with and without beavertail, and other options to adjust it to my preference. I do believe my next purchase may be a 1911, though, perhaps the Ruger version.
> Why is it that left-leaning groups do not seem as able to get right-leaning operatives on tape, admitting pretty bad things?...
> If we assume that folks on both sides are up to just the same sort of things, to what should we attribute the reason?
Certainly some conservatives have done, and admitted some bad things. Former Democrat turned reality show clown Donald Trump certainly has. But you may have a point. The worst thing Mitt Romney said was that 47% of voters had already decided to vote for Obama, 47% had decided to vote Romney, and he was now focused on the 6% undecided. They had to try really to make that bad.
Perhaps a difference is that a significant portion of liberals believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong, no good and bad. Many others don't go quite that far, but halfway at least. It's not wrong for them to do anything if they decide it's okay this time (aka if they feel like it). On the other hand, the majority of conservatives can point to the same list of 10 right and wrong ways to act, and most agree on which of those is most important. It's probably easy to do "pretty bad things" when you've decided it's not bad, if you decide so. If there is no right and wrong, only preference, anybody can justify to themselves all sorts of "pretty bad things". In general, conservatives have a steady, objective standard they *try* to live up to. There's little wiggle room in "thou shalt not bear false witness." You can't justify why it's subjectively okay this time.
> bragging about having sexually abused many women, raping at least one woman
But enough about Bill Clinton. How about having a full-time attacking the victims in order to reduce the damage to your husband's political reputation?
Agreed. The article tries to cast this is "for gossip". No. Kim Kardashian's emails would be gossip. An inside look at the actions of the US Secretary of State, who is running for President, is far more important than mere gossip. As is bringing to public scrutiny the process used to select the candidates. The purpose of the DNC is to put people in charge of running a superpower nation, and to strongly influence the policies of the United States. How that's done, by whom, for what reasons and what the back room deals are is all information of importance to The People.
That's a problem when your life, and the lives of your family and buddies depends on 100% reliability.
By far the most popular handgun ten years ago was the model 1911. So named because it was first made in that year, 1911. 20 years later, it had been proven extremely reliable so that's what professionals and careful civilians caried for almost a hundred years. Besides handguns, almost all trusted guns, from shotguns to ship cannons, were designs from John Browning or Samuel Colt. If you aren't Browning or Colt, we're not trusting our lives to your "clever", more complicated design.
After about 75 years of different people trying, Gaston Glock came up with a design which might rival the 1911, so after it was proven in military and police testing and proven in the field for 25 years, a lot of people switched from the 1911 to Glock. That's the switch, from a model that stood the test of time since 1911 to somethinf better only 90 years later.
Take your "you have no idea if it'll work" and do the USMC testing to it - bury it in wet sand, pull it out, and see if it fires reliably, every time. Keep that up for 25 years and maybe we'll trust our kids' lives to it. Until then, save your "maybe it'll work, maybe it won't" for video games.
> Donald is most assuredly a narcissist and again, it's gotten him to the Republican candidate for the President of the United States
Definitely. One staffer who worked directly with three or four presidents said is his book that all four had very similar personalities. The most striking thing was their arrogance, ego. The bastards all thought they could and should be president! Trump is no exception.
> The problem with your attempt to define Hillary as a psychopath / sociopath... can only be really defined as a disorder when they cause harm.
Certainly you're not suggesting that Hillary's complete disregard of other people's welfare in the face of her own ambitions has done no harm. Ambassador Stevens and the others who begged for proper security would disagree. Certainly the typical "psycho killer" does sufficient harm to others that it qualifies as a disorder, one need not harm themselves directly. Though it seems rather likely that her marriage to philanderer Bill is probably not so much fulfilling as it is a tool of her selfish ambition, so I'm sure thatbtype of thing has done her sufficient personal harm. From what we've seen publicly, it doesn't appear that she's capable of normal close relationships with others; other people are merely tools, means to her ends. That's certainly harmful.
> she just happens to be the only sane one running for President.
Howard Stern, Donald Trump, and Lady Gaga have quite a flair for being outrageous,a natural showmanship. In other words, they are clowns. None are good choices for president, IMHO.
On the other hand, we have Hillary. Here's how WebMD describes Antisocial Personality Disorder, also known as sociopathy:
-- Symptoms usually include antisocial behavior in which there is little concern for the rights of others such as indifference to the moral or legal standards of the region or community. A key to the disorder is long lasting, persistent, manipulative, exploitive actions and manners that determinedly ignore others --
"little concern for the rights of others such as indifference to the moral or legal standards", " long lasting, persistent, manipulative, exploitive actions" - that sure seems to describe what Hillary has been manifesting since at least 1977. While Trump is most assuredly a clown, Hillary is very likely a sociopath, so "the only sane one" would have to go to the clown, Trump.
If this seems convoluted and slow, it is. In fact, doing DNS lookups for all the ads, javascript, and crap on a web page is a major proportion of the total load time. It's not that loading of the ad banner itself is slow, it's doing the (very indirect) DNS lookups for the domain that counts ad impressions, another domain with Javascript that loads the ad, another domain where the actual ad image is, etc. Plus the site logo is on a CDN domain, the html on the home domain, some other part of the page on images.foo.com, etc. Your browser can easily look up 20 or 30 different names to load just one page.
Your ISP's name servers don't have the records for each name. Instead, it goes like this:
Your computer asks your ISP for the IP of mail.yahoo.com Your ISP asks the root servers "which DNS servers know about.com names?" The root server says "ask dns.root.com, aka 1.2.3.4." The ISP asks dns.root.com "which DNS servers know about yahoo.com?" Foo.root.com replies "four.dyndns.org knows about yahoo.com names." The ISP asks four.dyndns.org "what's the IP for mail.yahoo.com?" four.dyndns.org has the record for mail.yahoo.com and sends it back to your ISP. The ISP sends it to you. The ISP caches the answer for a few minutes, in case your neighbor wants to access mail.yahoo.com too.
It is unfortunate that it wasn't caught sooner. Do you have *any* reason to believe it was exploited years ago, or that anyone even thought it *could* be exploitable? To my knowledge, it was a crash bug, never considered a security issue until a few days agob
You only need a passport to *leave* the United States if you want to go by scheduled commercial air service (American Airlines, Delta, etc.) Russia has quite a few Gulfstream and Bombardier jets they could give him a ride on, and most of those aren't stationed in Russia - they are around the world, including in the US.
As someone else mentioned, he can also walk or drive across the border to mexico, and probably to Canada. getting back into the US from Mexico is when you need ID.
The eyeballs quote from Eric S Raymond is about *fixing* bugs. It doesn't say anything like "there will never be a bug". There most definitely WILL be bugs in all software (except the space shuttle software). The end of the sentence is the words "the fix obvious to someone" and a few lines down he says it "can be rephrased as "Debugging is parallelizable''. Linus clarified "Somebody finds the problem and somebody else understands it".
Would he include all of that discussion of how bugs are fixed if he even believed there were no bugs? Of course not. The claim is that no one person has to spend a long time trying to figure out what's causing the problem and then how to fix it without screwing up something else, "the fix will be obvious to someone".
In this case, a solid fix was released within a few days. Compare the IE content-negotiation bug, listed on MSDN for eight years before it was fixed.
The eyeballs quote from Eric S Raymond is about *fixing* bugs. It doesn't say anything like "there will never be a bug". The end of the sentence is the words "the fix obvious to someone" and a few lines down he says it "can be rephrased as "Debugging is parallelizable''. Linus clarified "Somebody finds the problem and somebody else understands it".
Would he include all of that discussion of how bugs are fixed if he even believed there were no bugs? Of course not. The claim is that no one person has to spend a long time trying to figure out what's causing the problem and then how to fix it without screwing up something else, "the fix will be obvious to someone".
In this case, a solid fix was released within a few days. Compare the IE content-negotiation bug, listed on MSDN for eight years before it was fixed.
For this specific attack, set up a secondary name server, using a secondary provider.
In November 1987, RFC 1034 was published. It describes how secondary DNS servers automatically sync from the primary. For about twelve years, people took that seriously. The used ar least two name servers that were unlikely to be affected by the same problem - separated geographically far apart and using two (or more) different network providers. Nowadays it's likely their two name servers are sitting right on top of each other in the same rack.
If both your DNS servers are with the same provider, wherher that be Amazon, DynDNS, or any other single provider, they are subject to fail due to the same cause, at the same time.
Btw ona different, but related topic - there's also an RFC for exactly how to build CDNs (reverse proxies) that actually work right. We've known how to do that correctly for decades, so everybody can read the damn RFC and stop inventing new ways to completely screw it up. First hint - the protocol for reverse proxies has been around far longer than the buzzword "CDN" that's now used to sell them.
Slashdot Mirror
For those curious what "short range" means in this case, about ten meters. So it could be used where you might otherwise use USB or perhaps HDMI. It's designed to hand off seamlessly to regular wifi, so your laptop could have a 6 Gbps connection at your desk which would switch to lower speeds as you carry it into the other room.
Ps, I noticed your sig. For ten years or so I was planning to be an attorney and I studied law, especially Constitutional law. Then I fell into a career programming and doing network security for 20 years. I bet we could have some interesting discussions. Right now I'm looking at where I want my career to be in ten years. It would be cool if I could somehow indulge my interest in law while taking advantage of my 20 years of programming and information security experience.
> the question of whether a password or fingerprint is "testimonial" and therefore cannot be coerced
In this case it's a fingerprint, not a password, so:
> the question of whether fingerprint is "testimonial" and therefore cannot be coerced
Ftfy
100 years of fingerprints being taken routinely has established some precendent.
The Republicans could have run Mufasa and beat these Democrats who have been running things the last 8 years, despite the fact that Mufasa is a cartoon character. They did nominate a cartoon character, but somehow they ended up choosing the one who polls worse than Hillary.
> fuck the elderly.
I'd rather not.
I'd rather fuck someone in her twenties.^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^thirties. Hey sweetheart, I didn't see tou standing there.
Okay, you make a fair point in the first half of your post. It had been a long time since I read exactly what he said. I'm assuming that your is accurate.
Quoting you, quoting him:
---
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him
Then you say:
> He says 48-49% of American voters are going to vote for Barrack Obama, no matter what Romney does.
Well no, according to you, he said TWICE 47%. Assuming your numbers for undecided, 5%-6%, that would mean they were neck-and-neck.
> choose how often I want a product and when I want it delivered.
Target offers something like that.
http://www.target.com/c/target...
I was thinking Walmart did too, but I'm not sure. I do know that at Walmart you can shop online, then go pick it up when your order is ready, and they'll load it in your car.
Thanks for the info.
> Surely a fingerprint taken for identification purposes is personal information, solely taken for that purpose. There are (at least in principle) increasing controls for the use of personal information and I can't see why a fingerprint taken for this purpose could be legitimately used elsewhere.
I think the "could be legitimately used" part depends very much on a proper warrant showing probable cause.
Suppose you leave your set of keys with a locksmith, for the purpose of getting copies made. The police, based on actual probable cause, get a warrant to search your safe deposit box for specific Top Secret documents which are probably in your box, and an accompanying order to the locksmith to hand over the key. I see no Constitutional problem there - they open the box because they have a proper, specific warrant showing probable cause. Using the key is not disallowed, there's no Constitutional protection of the key per se.
Where there would be a problem would be if they open the box without a warrant, or as in this case an overly broad warrant. If they warrant had been proper, they could execute it using a key, a pick, a fingerprint, or whatever other tool was appropriate.
Why are you trying to compare the number of homicides to suicides? Neither homicide nor suicide saves lives, dummy. Self-defense and defense of others saves lives. When you're trying to run away from the bad guy and I'm running toward you both to take him down, that's saving lives.
90% of suicides don't involve a gun, BTW. You don't need a gun to off yourself, a Chevy will do the job quite well.
We have very little information to go on. I'd like to read the actual warant and know the cirumstances, but based on the article it seems like a violation of the FOURTH amendment. The cops are supposed to have a warrant, based on probable cause, describing what particular things they are searching for and where, and why they think those things are in that place.
I can't imagine a probable cause to believe that everyone in the building has some specific evidence on their phone. Thus the search itself is unconstitutional under the fourth, with or without a fingerprint.
The fifth says you don't have to testify against yourself. It doesn't say you can't be fingerprinted. Thus I see no *fifth* amendment violation, though it seems like a rather onerous *fourth* amendment violation.
The stock Glock grip doesn't work too well in my hand either. Of course I know I can get all kinds of different backstraps, with and without beavertail, and other options to adjust it to my preference. I do believe my next purchase may be a 1911, though, perhaps the Ruger version.
> Why is it that left-leaning groups do not seem as able to get right-leaning operatives on tape, admitting pretty bad things? ...
> If we assume that folks on both sides are up to just the same sort of things, to what should we attribute the reason?
Certainly some conservatives have done, and admitted some bad things. Former Democrat turned reality show clown Donald Trump certainly has. But you may have a point. The worst thing Mitt Romney said was that 47% of voters had already decided to vote for Obama, 47% had decided to vote Romney, and he was now focused on the 6% undecided. They had to try really to make that bad.
Perhaps a difference is that a significant portion of liberals believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong, no good and bad. Many others don't go quite that far, but halfway at least. It's not wrong for them to do anything if they decide it's okay this time (aka if they feel like it). On the other hand, the majority of conservatives can point to the same list of 10 right and wrong ways to act, and most agree on which of those is most important. It's probably easy to do "pretty bad things" when you've decided it's not bad, if you decide so. If there is no right and wrong, only preference, anybody can justify to themselves all sorts of "pretty bad things". In general, conservatives have a steady, objective standard they *try* to live up to. There's little wiggle room in "thou shalt not bear false witness." You can't justify why it's subjectively okay this time.
> bragging about having sexually abused many women, raping at least one woman
But enough about Bill Clinton. How about having a full-time attacking the victims in order to reduce the damage to your husband's political reputation?
Agreed. The article tries to cast this is "for gossip". No. Kim Kardashian's emails would be gossip. An inside look at the actions of the US Secretary of State, who is running for President, is far more important than mere gossip. As is bringing to public scrutiny the process used to select the candidates. The purpose of the DNC is to put people in charge of running a superpower nation, and to strongly influence the policies of the United States. How that's done, by whom, for what reasons and what the back room deals are is all information of importance to The People.
> You have NO IDEA how effective
That's a problem when your life, and the lives of your family and buddies depends on 100% reliability.
By far the most popular handgun ten years ago was the model 1911. So named because it was first made in that year, 1911. 20 years later, it had been proven extremely reliable so that's what professionals and careful civilians caried for almost a hundred years. Besides handguns, almost all trusted guns, from shotguns to ship cannons, were designs from John Browning or Samuel Colt. If you aren't Browning or Colt, we're not trusting our lives to your "clever", more complicated design.
After about 75 years of different people trying, Gaston Glock came up with a design which might rival the 1911, so after it was proven in military and police testing and proven in the field for 25 years, a lot of people switched from the 1911 to Glock. That's the switch, from a model that stood the test of time since 1911 to somethinf better only 90 years later.
Take your "you have no idea if it'll work" and do the USMC testing to it - bury it in wet sand, pull it out, and see if it fires reliably, every time. Keep that up for 25 years and maybe we'll trust our kids' lives to it. Until then, save your "maybe it'll work, maybe it won't" for video games.
> Donald is most assuredly a narcissist and again, it's gotten him to the Republican candidate for the President of the United States
Definitely. One staffer who worked directly with three or four presidents said is his book that all four had very similar personalities. The most striking thing was their arrogance, ego. The bastards all thought they could and should be president! Trump is no exception.
> The problem with your attempt to define Hillary as a psychopath / sociopath ... can only be really defined as a disorder when they cause harm.
Certainly you're not suggesting that Hillary's complete disregard of other people's welfare in the face of her own ambitions has done no harm. Ambassador Stevens and the others who begged for proper security would disagree. Certainly the typical "psycho killer" does sufficient harm to others that it qualifies as a disorder, one need not harm themselves directly. Though it seems rather likely that her marriage to philanderer Bill is probably not so much fulfilling as it is a tool of her selfish ambition, so I'm sure thatbtype of thing has done her sufficient personal harm. From what we've seen publicly, it doesn't appear that she's capable of normal close relationships with others; other people are merely tools, means to her ends. That's certainly harmful.
> she just happens to be the only sane one running for President.
Howard Stern, Donald Trump, and Lady Gaga have quite a flair for being outrageous,a natural showmanship. In other words, they are clowns. None are good choices for president, IMHO.
On the other hand, we have Hillary. Here's how WebMD describes Antisocial Personality Disorder, also known as sociopathy:
--
Symptoms usually include antisocial behavior in which there is little concern for the rights of others such as indifference to the moral or legal standards of the region or community. A key to the disorder is long lasting, persistent, manipulative, exploitive actions and manners that determinedly ignore others
--
"little concern for the rights of others such as indifference to the moral or legal standards", " long lasting, persistent, manipulative, exploitive actions" - that sure seems to describe what Hillary has been manifesting since at least 1977. While Trump is most assuredly a clown, Hillary is very likely a sociopath, so "the only sane one" would have to go to the clown, Trump.
If this seems convoluted and slow, it is. In fact, doing DNS lookups for all the ads, javascript, and crap on a web page is a major proportion of the total load time. It's not that loading of the ad banner itself is slow, it's doing the (very indirect) DNS lookups for the domain that counts ad impressions, another domain with Javascript that loads the ad, another domain where the actual ad image is, etc. Plus the site logo is on a CDN domain, the html on the home domain, some other part of the page on images.foo.com, etc. Your browser can easily look up 20 or 30 different names to load just one page.
Your ISP's name servers don't have the records for each name. Instead, it goes like this:
Your computer asks your ISP for the IP of mail.yahoo.com .com names?" The root server says "ask dns.root.com, aka 1.2.3.4." The ISP asks dns.root.com "which DNS servers know about yahoo.com?" Foo.root.com replies "four.dyndns.org knows about yahoo.com names."
Your ISP asks the root servers "which DNS servers know about
The ISP asks four.dyndns.org "what's the IP for mail.yahoo.com?"
four.dyndns.org has the record for mail.yahoo.com and sends it back to your ISP.
The ISP sends it to you.
The ISP caches the answer for a few minutes, in case your neighbor wants to access mail.yahoo.com too.
It is unfortunate that it wasn't caught sooner. Do you have *any* reason to believe it was exploited years ago, or that anyone even thought it *could* be exploitable? To my knowledge, it was a crash bug, never considered a security issue until a few days agob
> And how do you then get him out of the country?
You only need a passport to *leave* the United States if you want to go by scheduled commercial air service (American Airlines, Delta, etc.) Russia has quite a few Gulfstream and Bombardier jets they could give him a ride on, and most of those aren't stationed in Russia - they are around the world, including in the US.
As someone else mentioned, he can also walk or drive across the border to mexico, and probably to Canada. getting back into the US from Mexico is when you need ID.
The eyeballs quote from Eric S Raymond is about *fixing* bugs. It doesn't say anything like "there will never be a bug". There most definitely WILL be bugs in all software (except the space shuttle software). The end of the sentence is the words "the fix obvious to someone" and a few lines down he says it "can be rephrased as "Debugging is parallelizable''. Linus clarified "Somebody finds the problem and somebody else understands it".
Would he include all of that discussion of how bugs are fixed if he even believed there were no bugs? Of course not. The claim is that no one person has to spend a long time trying to figure out what's causing the problem and then how to fix it without screwing up something else, "the fix will be obvious to someone".
In this case, a solid fix was released within a few days. Compare the IE content-negotiation bug, listed on MSDN for eight years before it was fixed.
The eyeballs quote from Eric S Raymond is about *fixing* bugs. It doesn't say anything like "there will never be a bug". The end of the sentence is the words "the fix obvious to someone" and a few lines down he says it "can be rephrased as "Debugging is parallelizable''. Linus clarified "Somebody finds the problem and somebody else understands it".
Would he include all of that discussion of how bugs are fixed if he even believed there were no bugs? Of course not. The claim is that no one person has to spend a long time trying to figure out what's causing the problem and then how to fix it without screwing up something else, "the fix will be obvious to someone".
In this case, a solid fix was released within a few days. Compare the IE content-negotiation bug, listed on MSDN for eight years before it was fixed.
For this specific attack, set up a secondary name server, using a secondary provider.
In November 1987, RFC 1034 was published. It describes how secondary DNS servers automatically sync from the primary. For about twelve years, people took that seriously. The used ar least two name servers that were unlikely to be affected by the same problem - separated geographically far apart and using two (or more) different network providers. Nowadays it's likely their two name servers are sitting right on top of each other in the same rack.
If both your DNS servers are with the same provider, wherher that be Amazon, DynDNS, or any other single provider, they are subject to fail due to the same cause, at the same time.
Btw ona different, but related topic - there's also an RFC for exactly how to build CDNs (reverse proxies) that actually work right. We've known how to do that correctly for decades, so everybody can read the damn RFC and stop inventing new ways to completely screw it up. First hint - the protocol for reverse proxies has been around far longer than the buzzword "CDN" that's now used to sell them.